On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 19:42:30 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>> Of course.  But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
>> been with BSD since the beginning.  There is a similar list of items
>> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
>> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.
> I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
> implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
> certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
> were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
> subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
> time to be a competitive threat).

Which files?  Did they require adapting to a different environment?

> I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list of
> items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the JFS
> specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly two
> items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction abort).

I'd expect these to be the easiest parts, since they don't have too
much to do with the rest of the system.  One of the issues with Linux
is that the interface to the rest of the system, and I don't expect
these parts to have much interfacing to do.

>>> I think that everyone saying "Ut oh!  SCARY!" gives people the wrong
>>> idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
>> I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
>> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?".  As I
>> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.
> I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
> about 2 hours. 

I expect the user space tools for JFS2 to be pretty straightforward

>> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
>> file system too.
> Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
> product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
> that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
> and linked code not being GPL'ed).

Fine, so we load the module.  What's your point?

> What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
> ...

Well, I suppose it'll still be good for them.  Maybe.

> RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
> distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
> work around the letter of the GPL.  Given his religious convictions,
> I can't see him *not*.  Factor that into your decision.

You want me personally to get him to agree that loading modules at
boot time does not violate the GPL?

See complete headers for address and phone numbers

To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message

Reply via email to