On 6/12/2010 1:44 PM, andrew wrote:
On 6/10/2010 9:04 PM, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet
wrote:
On Tue, Jun 8, 2010 at 7:14 PM, Anurag
Agarwal<anu...@kqinfotech.com> wrote:
We at KQInfotech, initially started on an
independent port of ZFS to linux.
When we posted our progress about port last year,
then we came to know about
the work on LLNL port. Since then we started
working on to re-base our
changing on top Brian's changes.
We are working on porting ZPL on that code. Our
current status is that
mount/unmount is working. Most of the directory
operations and read/write is
also working. There is still lot more development
work and testing that
needs to be going in this. But we are committed to
make this happen so
please stay tuned.
Good times ahead!
I don't mean to be a PITA, but I'm assuming that
someone lawyerly has had the appropriate discussions
with the porting team about how linking against the
GPL'd Linux kernel means your kernel module has to be
GPL-compatible. It doesn't matter if you distribute
it outside the general kernel source tarball, what
matters is that you're linking against a GPL program,
and the old GPL v2 doesn't allow for a
non-GPL-compatibly-licensed module to do that.
This is incorrect. The viral effects of the GPL only take effect at the point
of distribution. If ZFS is distributed seperately to the Linux kernel as a
module then the person doing the combining is the user. Different if a Linux
distro wanted to include it on a live CD, for example. GPL is not concerned
with what code is linked with what.
Cheers
Andrew.
Yes, I know that. As has also been pointed out before in this thread.
But, while it's not the original ZFS-linux developer's fault, very often
you see downstream aggregators and distributions created out of software
from multiple sources. It very much would be their problem. As would any
folks producing hardware appliances. Or any of the other myriad (but by
no means all) ways that using the ZFS-linux code could easily turn into
distribution.
The original point was that both the developer and those downstream need
to be careful about using these two kinds of licensed code together.
Not that's it not possible to use the code. Just that the developer
needs to get good (professional) legal advice, and follow it. And that
the limitations are understood by the community at large.
I assumed distribution of the combined code at some point in my original
note. Sorry I wasn't explicit about that. I didn't mean to start a
license minutiae discussion.
--
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop: usca22-123
Phone: x17195
Santa Clara, CA
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
