Date: Fri, 14 Dec 2001 22:39:55 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: scanner@jurai.net Cc: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.ORG>, Brad Knowles <brad.knowles@skynet.be>, Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>, chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD) Message-ID: <3C1AF03B.571C4EB6@mindspring.com> References: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0112142003280.90198-100000@sasami.jurai.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
scanner@jurai.net wrote: [ ... porting JFS for benchmark reasons ... ] > Yes doing so would be nice. For that exact reason. To see some real > numbers and how they stack up. I think we all agree on this. > However i'm with brad it would be better > considering the nature of the GPL on JFS, to get co-operation from > SGI. Maybe they would consider another point of view in licensing their > XFS to the BSD folks. Then again maybe not. When I talked to their Chief Scientist who had made the GPL'ing decision about relicensing the code, and the fact that most of the best academic FS hackers are in the BSD camp, and the fact that you would not be able to take changes to the GPL'ed version of the FS (derivative works of GPL'ed code), and reintegrated them into IRIX, he was rather intractable. Now that SGI has virtually collapsed, and could use both the press and free profressional help with their code, they might have changed their tune, but don't bet on it. Last time I had the discussions, it was very clear that they had The Religion. > Everytime this issue comes up its the same friggin thing. The GPL > is a deal killer. Period. I know your stance on the GPL greg. And I > respect it. But I dont think the vast majority of BSD users or developers > share it. This is like the 5th time this issue has come up about an JFS > on FreeBSD. And again I think the only solution that is even going to > remotely fly is to talk to vendors about getting source under a BSD like > license. Actually, if they'd just LGPL the damn thing, we could ar it into a library, and be done with it. > I think with the right people at SGI some sane discussions could > take place. I would never have thought Intel would of budged just a minute > ammount on their doco policy but they did just a little. And SGI is by far > more friendly to OS then Intel. Otherwise if no one cares to release a JFS > under a BSD like license, then the best and I think most natural solution > is to just work on FFS to make it the best FS possible. Which is what Kirk > is doing. And we should all feel lucky that Kirk still has an interest in > improving FFS and that he helps out. I would be happy to make contact with > SGI and try to get some things rolling if we ever come to a conclusion > about JFS support. The GFS people are willing to talk on license, and Kirk is already working on UFS2. In addition, significant work on Margo Seltzer's LFS code has taken place in NetBSD in the last year, including the creation of a fully operational "clearner" daemon. As has also been pointed out, the JFS in question is "only around 2000 lines of code"; frankly given a full design document in hand, I could probably bang that out in a week or less (my record is 22,000 lines of C++ code in 2 weeks of code writing, after 6 weeks of design work, with two one line defects and one three line defect after the period of 2 years; I have witnesses -- right Julian E., Mark P.?). There are plenty of options. -- Terry 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?3C1AF03B.571C4EB6>