On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 09:20 Rodney W. Grimes < free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > This has zero impact on the licensing disposition of the kernel as > > distributed as it is only used for test kernels. Tests compiled with > > coverage instrumentation run much slower than even debug, one would never > > ship this. > > Shit happens, mistakes get made, and sadly the consequences for someone > could be pretty sad. > > > You are very much in the minority being more concerned with ideological > > purity than minimizing the decline in relevance of FreeBSD, much less > > striving to increase its relevance. > > I am not in the minority when it comes to GPL code anyplace > in our base system, did you not read what core said, did you > not read the suggested revised license guideline text? > > This gcov code has to eventually go, sooner or later. Unless there is a fully equivalent replacement, that will be another small step towards Linux's complete hegemony. > > > On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:27 Rodney W. Grimes < > > free...@pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote: > > > > > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 06:18:42PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > > > > > The modest increase in activation energy for that task seems > worth > > > it > > > > > > > for the short-term gains of reduced integration cost (this code > > > will > > > > > > > greatly improve our ZFS-on-Linux test coverage.) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Rod rightly points out that we haven't accepted SPDX tags > alone as > > > > > > > license statements. The standard GPL v2.0 boiler plate should > be > > > added > > > > > > > to this file along side the tag. > > > > > > > > > > > > I've copied the full copyright attribution that is in the > > > > > > corresponding files on Linux. Is there some reason why FreeBSD > > > > > > requires the files to be inflated with the full license text > where > > > the > > > > > > original lacks it? > > > > > > > > > > I think for a few reasons, I doubt you copied the whole > distribution > > > > > that this file came from, as I am sure that distribution included > > > > > a LICENSE file. Second if you actually read the GPL v2 > documentation > > > > > and follow what it says it says you must do this, just because some > > > > > one else does not follow the rules of what the GPL v2 says does not > > > > > give us to knowingling not do it. Third this is a particular > > > dangerious > > > > > area for BSD to be mixing a GPL code with its kernel, to my > knowlege > > > > > we have never had any gpl code in the kernel, no have we ever > > > > > allowed it, but thats a seperate argument, that should be made. > > > > > > > > Would the arm64 DTS/DTB files count as "GPL code in the kernel?" > > > > > > > > I, too, would like less GPL in project, both in userland in kernel. > > > > But, I can understand the desire for gcov. Note that I'm not > > > > advocating either way that FreeBSD perform an action. ;) > > > > > > Didnt we just remove an inbase, compiling BSD licensed chunk of > > > code called DRM and move it to ports. So if that was possible > > > this should be very rapidly applied here and this issue goes away. > > > > > > I am still shaking my head over this one. Yes, there is some > > > expediance to this. Also could it not live on a project > > > branch? Like.. um.. the ZoL project branch? > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > Shawn Webb > > > -- > > > Rod Grimes > > > rgri...@freebsd.org > > > > > -- > Rod Grimes > rgri...@freebsd.org > _______________________________________________ svn-src-head@freebsd.org mailing list https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/svn-src-head To unsubscribe, send any mail to "svn-src-head-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
