Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 01:05:29 -0600 From: Russell Cattelan <cattelan@thebarn.com> To: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Cc: Jack Rusher <jar@integratus.com>, Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>, Sam Leffler <sam@errno.com>, Zhiui Zhang <zzhang@cs.binghamton.edu>, freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Design a journalled file system Message-ID: <3A8396B9.CA8C09E4@thebarn.com> References: <200102072323.QAA27692@usr08.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert wrote:
>
{...}
>
> > > I rather suspect that the GPL was intentionally chosen by SGI
> > > to permit them to jump on the Linux/Open Source bandwagon,
> > > without exposing them to the risk of a commercial organization
> > > which competes with SGI being able to benefit from the technology
> >
> > This is unquestionably true. I have word from some of the architects
> > who helped design XFS that this was exactly the reason GPL was chosen
> > over the BSD license.
>
> I had a pretty long discussion with their V.P. of engineering,
> who made the decision (they have a number of "V.P. of engineering"
> lying around). He didn't come out and say the same thing, and I
> really didn't attribute it to that, since it means that any bug
> fixes are GPL-code derived, and therefore also GPL. That would
> mean that they really don't expect any useful work to come out of
> the Linux community, or that they expected people to just sign
> over rights to anything interesting, which I think would be a bit
> naieve, to say the least.
I'm not sure who you talked with? but it really it that simple.
The reason the GPL was chosen for XFS.
It's the license Linux is using, and since
the port is being done for Linux it makes sense.
SGI is also doing work with the XFree code, the work
is being released under the X license (which is also
an anti GPL license).
SGI is basically matching license for licensee to
whatever project they are contributing to.
This from the lawyer that is doing all the open source work.
I have stated this in the past but I will bring it up again.
If sufficient momentum can be generated toward an fbsd port
of XFS, it may be possible to go to the lawyers and have a another
license drawn up.
But unless the bsd community can show they are serious about XFS
being ported it would be a waste of time to ask for something that SGI
has very little business interesting in doing.
Note Darwin might be a big win in terms of making a business case
for another platform.
The license shouldn't be that big of an issue.
Lots of fbsd uses GPL'ed code... hmm gcc for example.
Let get to the point were XFS is in such demand on fbsd
we can get a petition going if necessary to have the license
updated.
BTW if anybody is interested a few of us have started looking
at actually doing the port.
Not much has been done at this point... basically battling through
header file cleanup.
Ohh one other comment:
The only time SGI may ask for a copy write reassignment is if the
contributed code affects the filesystem compatibility between irix and
linux. This would have to be a major contribution before something like
this would be an issue, and some negotiation will most certainly be involved.
Up to to this point all bug fixes have been linux related only so it really
isn't an issue.
This isn't SGI trying to be an ass... rather SGI trying to provide the
most compatible FS it can within the constrains of many legal issues.
--
Russell Cattelan
cattelan@thebarn.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?3A8396B9.CA8C09E4>