Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Mon, 14 Jun 1999 04:53:23 -0700
From:      "David Schwartz" <davids@webmaster.com>
To:        "Tani Hosokawa" <unknown@riverstyx.net>
Cc:        "Dag-Erling Smorgrav" <des@flood.ping.uio.no>, <freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Subject:   RE: SGI Donated Journalised FS Source to Linux
Message-ID:  <000001beb65c$812bf260$021d85d1@whenever.youwant.to>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.10.9906141848010.4024-100000@avarice.riverstyx.net>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
> I still don't see how the XFS filesystem and the implementation of the XFS
> filesystem (both created by SGI for SGI with only SGI's resources) could
> be considered a derivative of Linux.  If the only issue is the bundling of
> the XFS source code with Linux, then maybe it'll be necessary for people
> to download the XFS code separately.  I certainly can't see SGI losing all
> its rights to its own filesystem just because they contributed it to
> Linux.  Nobody wants that to happen.

	Forgive me for making an argument with which I do not agree, but I think I
can do it clearly:

	The XFS filesystem would not be useful alone, right?

	You would need the Linux kernel to use it.

	So the XFS filesystem is not a 'work'. The Linux kernel with the module
loaded into it is one 'work'. This is clearly true if they were compiled
together, but there is no legal distinction between compile time and link
time.

	Again, if there's a better way to express it, please let me know. But any
first-year law student can point out the 400 holes in this.

	DS



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: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?000001beb65c$812bf260$021d85d1>