From owner-freebsd-fs@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Apr 10 09:37:58 2007 Return-Path: X-Original-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [69.147.83.52]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD85716A404; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:37:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from smtp-1.dlr.de (smtp-1.dlr.de [195.37.61.185]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 68F6913C4E1; Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:37:58 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from Hartmut.Brandt@dlr.de) Received: from [192.168.3.57] ([172.21.151.2]) by smtp-1.dlr.de with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:25:53 +0200 Message-ID: <461B581B.3010501@dlr.de> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 11:25:47 +0200 From: Hartmut Brandt User-Agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.4 (Windows/20060516) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Ivan Voras References: <20070406025700.GB98545@garage.freebsd.pl> <46177881.3090509@wcborstel.com> <20070407141736.GC4058@freebie.xs4all.nl> <461B54B6.60404@fer.hr> In-Reply-To: <461B54B6.60404@fer.hr> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Apr 2007 09:25:53.0356 (UTC) FILETIME=[3C5C38C0:01C77B52] Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org, Pawel Jakub Dawidek , Jorn Argelo , freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-current@freebsd.org, Wilko Bulte Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS committed to the FreeBSD base. X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2007 09:37:58 -0000 Ivan Voras wrote: > Wilko Bulte wrote: >> On Sat, Apr 07, 2007 at 12:54:57PM +0200, Jorn Argelo wrote.. >>> Rich Teer wrote: >>>> This is fantastic news! At the risk of raking over ye olde arguments, >>>> as the old saying goes: "Dual licensing? We don't need no stinkeen >>>> dual licensing!". :-) >>>> >>>> >>> First of all, thanks a lot for all the hard work of both the FreeBSD >>> developers as the ZFS developers. I can't wait to give it a go. >>> >>> That leads me to one question though: Why is *BSD able to bring it >>> into the OS as where Linux has licensing problems with the CDDL? >>> AFAIK Linux users can only run it in userland mode and not in kernel >>> mode because of the licenses. >> >> My guess(!) is that they do not want non-GPL-ed code in the standard >> kernel. > > Sorry if I'm reiterating what someone maybe already explained, but I > don't see it on the lists I read: > > FreeBSD can include GPL'ed code due to a "technicality" (literally): > As long as the code is in a separate kernel module and not in the > default shipped GENERIC kernel, it's considered "bundled" and not a > part of the kernel. As soon as the user loads a GPLed kernel module, > presto-changeo! his kernel "automagically" becomes GPLed. I believe > the same holds for CDDL. (I have no idea how to resolve the licensing > issues of a kernel with both GPL and CDDL parts :) ). This is less > inconvenient than it seems since kernel modules can be (pre)loaded at > the same I had some discussion with folks at Sun (indirectly via another guy) while they were in the process of making the CDDL: They said: Modifications to CDDL code must be under CDDL. This means if you change a CDDLed file, your changes are CDDL. If you add a line to the CDDL code that calls a function in another, new file, you're free to put that other file under any license as long as there is a compatibility the other way 'round - you probably cannot put that file under GPL, but you can put it under BSD. The new file is not a modification of the CDDLed code. harti