Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2001 20:30:53 -0800 From: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> To: Greg Lehey <grog@FreeBSD.org> Cc: hiten@uk.FreeBSD.org, "Brandon D. Valentine" <bandix@looksharp.net>, "Gary W. Swearingen" <swear@blarg.net>, Hiten Pandya <hitmaster2k@yahoo.com>, chat@FreeBSD.org, phk@FreeBSD.org, Poul-Henning Kamp <phk@critter.freebsd.dk> Subject: Re: IBM's intentions with JFS (was: IBM suing (was: RMS Suing was [SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD)) Message-ID: <3C19807D.C441F084@mindspring.com> References: <3C186EA5.4EA87656@mindspring.com> <20011213093555.76629.qmail@web21107.mail.yahoo.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <1id71idej9.71i@localhost.localdomain> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <20011213051012.Y56723-100000@turtle.looksharp.net> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <3C1875D6.5DE4F996@mindspring.com> <3C186381.6AB07090@yahoo.com> <20011214122837.O3448@monorchid.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Greg Lehey wrote: > There seem to be a lot of misconceptions going on about IBM's > intentions with regard to the GPL release of JFS2. In particular, I > think that Terry is wide of the mark, despite having worked with IBM. > I don't speak officially for IBM (I'm not paid enough :-), but I can > confidently state that: > > 1. IBM has released JFS2 as open source. You can do whatever the > license allows with it, including unrestricted commercial use. You can not perform unrestricted commercial use with GPL'ed code; it's that simple. If I wanted to release a FreeBSD CDROM that installed on a JFS by default, I couldn't do it, since I can't comply with clauses 2(b), 4, and 6. In other words, I am allowed only _restricted_ commercial use. > 4. It is possible to port JFS2 to FreeBSD without violating any > license, either via loophole or otherwise. > > In this connection, I would like to point out an issue with the > LGPL which I personally think is sailing close to the wind: I > can't see any real license distinction between linking GPL'd code > into the kernel and loading the module either during the boot or > afterwards. In the first case, the code is statically linked, in > the latter it's dynamically linked. In each case, the result is > the same. That's not important, though, because RMS does think > there's a difference (or he's prepared to pretend there's one, and > he's prepared to sanction use in this form). My understanding is that the JFS code is GPL'ed, not LGPL'ed. > > 4) Build boot code that can at least read JFS, and load the > > real JFS as a kernel module. > > > > o Since you have to deal with all the lookup and > > log version selection issues, this is more than > > half way to a reimplementation without the GPL. > > No, I don't believe this to be the case. I'm currently looking at > reading JFS1 file systems, and for read-only access I can completely > ignore the journal (assuming the file system is clean). You can't. Be definition, you must take the most recent journal entry for the journalled data, and therefore you must compare. > > This is legally risky, if Greg is right, and the > > intent was to prevent commercial use of the code, > > since you defeat their intent. > > No, you misunderstand. See above: the intention was to prevent > competitors incorporating IBM code in their proprietary products. You > can't prevent commercial use of GPL software. The license is incompatible with the FreeBSD license, since you can not change the FreeBSD license on the code in order to comply with clause 2(b) of the GPL, which requires that all the code in a derivative work be licensed under the GPL. This is a defacto prevention of the commercial use of GPL software in the context of a joint derivative work of the GPL software and non-GPL software. > "Contamination" was a term thrown around during the USL wars of the > early 90s. I even have a USENIX pin somewhere saying "mentally > contaminated". Cases like this have been tried in court in Europe: > people who worked for one company were required to sign contracts > which prohibited them from ever working for any of their competitors, > effectively requiring them to discard their expertise and take up some > other line of work. The contracts were found to be in breach of law. > I don't know if US law would rule any differently. In the context of where I used the word, from which the reply by Gary S. to which you are actually replying here, "contamination" is a legal test of whether or not someone can participate in a "clean room" implementation from specifications derived from a "dirty" source. This dates back to the Compaq, and then, later, Phoenix "clean room" implemetnation of the first "100% compatible" PC BIOS. A person who has experience with the code in question is considered "contaminated" and is not permitted to participate in the implementation from the specification. The people who create the specification by examining the original product are, by definition, "contaminated" by their association to it. The specific legal term is "fruit of the poison tree"; here are some legal references: <http://www.legallanguage.com/lawarticles/Clarida006.html>; <http://www.eetimes.com/story/design_technology_roi/OEG20010604S0058>; This is the same principle which led to the Exclusionary Rule (5th ammendment protections preclude coerced confessions, etc.). The cultural reference from which it's derived is the poem "A Poison Tree", by William Blake. Here is one instance of the poem: <http://www.emule.com/poetry/?page=poem&poem=70>; ... The Gods of the earth and sea, Sought through Nature to find this Tree, But their search was all in vain; There grows one in the Human Brain. See also: <http://www.boreworms.com/karellen/rev-eng.html>; <http://home.pacbell.net/mhiller/cronus.html>; ...etc. -- 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?3C19807D.C441F084>