On Sun, Jan 09, 2011 at 12:33:59AM -0600, Brandon Gooch wrote:
> On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 12:01 AM, Xiaodong Yi <xdong...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > I confirm that I no longer have time for Luvalley. However, I will be
> > extreemly happy if anybody is willing to take over from me.
> > Especially, I quite agree to customize Luvalley for FreeBSD, through
> > it supports all kinds of Dom0 OSes. Howerver, I hope that the LIGHT
> > architecture of Luvalley could be kept. Maybe it is useful to patch
> > dom0 FreeBSD kernel (especially for interrupt handling), but it should
> > not be very complex. Part of the code comes from KVM, and I suggest to
> > keep flying with KVM to make sure that guest VMs work well.
>
> I believe that if serious effort were to be put forward by the FreeBSD
> developers to further develop the code, the result would need to be
> GPL and Linux free (or VERY close to it). This is an area of
> contention within the FreeBSD developer and user community, so it
> would need to be addressed. As the developer of Luvalley, do you have
> the ability to re-license the code using a BSD license?
>
> Are there too many technical issues with the code to do this? Juergen
> mentioned that bits of the code are based on (or pulled directly
> from?) Linux KVM. That probably wouldn't fly here...
>
> > Luvalley does boot and run on bare hardware. But it does not taint
> > dom0 FreeBSD. Although the `non-root' mode dom0 FreeBSD kernel has
> > direct access to BIOS and hardware, Luvalley tries hard to coordinate
> > with it. For example, Luvalley traps the BIOS calls from the FreeBSD
> > kernel to report the modified E820 table. Another example is that
> > Luvalley uses NMI as the IPI interrupt to avoid conflict with BSD
> > kernel. And I also believe that simple patches could work if some
> > corners of FreeBSD kernel are tainted.
> >
> > Regards, and looking forward to the following news ...
> >
> > Xiaodong
>
> As am I...
>
> Thanks for chiming in Xiaodong!
Actually with `tainting' the FreeBSD kernel I meant causing it to be
affected by the gpl and its requirements. So if someone were to ship
e.g. an appliance that uses Luvalley and a modified FreeBSD kernel he
would only have to provide sourcecode of Luvalley and the userland
Luvalley version of qemu-kvm, not of his FreeBSD kernel modifications,
or of other (non-gpl) userland apps for that matter.
But again, IANAL. :)
Cheers,
Juergen (also hoping Luvalley will have a future...)
_______________________________________________
freebsd-emulation@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-emulation
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-emulation-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
