On Sonntag, 17. Februar 2008, Alan McKinnon wrote: > On Sunday 17 February 2008, Volker Armin Hemmann wrote: > > > So Hans and others could develop very cool features that 'plugin' > > > to reiser4fs, but, if they choose, folks would have to *PAY* for > > > these advanced features. That's the whole rub (in essence) as to > > > why reiser4fs will never make it into the kernel. Lots of kernel > > > folks *do not trust Hans Reiser*....... > > > > that accusations came up. I remember. But what about the extremly > > patched Distro kernels? They 'enhance' the kernels with 'special > > features' and demand money for them (yes, I look at you Redhat and > > Suse). > > Which proves that the GPL is working AS DESIGNED. What's wrong with > that? >
> Red Hat don't lock you out from their stuff. The fee you pay is in > return for a promise from RH that if you have a problem with their > stuff and phone them, they will pick up the phone and talk to you. > > If you don't like the fee structure, you know where the src rpm's are, > you just don't get the human support you didn't pay for. There's always > Centos who quite happily rebuild Red Hat's special stuff for you. > > As for SuSE, there's no evil there. A lot of stupidity and a lot of > dumb-ass Novell who can't see a tree because there's a huge forest in > the way, but no evil. > no, you misunderstood me. Why the 'oh my god, reiser4 might be able to use rd party commercial modules (which would have to have compiled into the kernel - thus must be GPLed)' but 'hey, patching kernel with commercial stuff is ok' when it is is done by RedHAT and Suse. And don't forget ccXFS. A cluster extension for XFS by SGI. Closed source, not open - and all the hooks for it are in linux-xfs. So for XFS it was ok to have the ability to load a closed source extension, but for reiser4 it was not ok to habe the ability to extent itself with open source extensions. Do you see the problem? > -- > Alan McKinnon > alan dot mckinnon at gmail dot com -- gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org mailing list
