The only other feature I was thought of, was user-mode-linux's COW copy on write layer over the block device. It is very useful in the cases of crashes as it can be used to prevent fsck/checkdisk on the next boot in addation to haveing a block device shared by several instances.
Also if we find something we like we could ask for a license waver. The worst that might happen is that they would say no. Most would likely have few problems with a GPL/LGPL dual license for non core code. Just my view, they may say no; as is their right. But I don't view it as being a problem to ask. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Drew Northup" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, December 08, 2001 11:54 AM Subject: Re: [plex86] SourceForge Was: bochs 1.3 --> plex86? > On Fri, 7 Dec 2001, User1 wrote: > > > I still think Plex86 should share code with DOSEMU and with the Bochs that > > is being developed on Sourceforge. It's interesting how people who don't > > know much about things will be delighted to offer their oppinion that we > > can't do what DOSEMU does for SVGA... but can they say why, in a way that we > > can understand? > > Yes, I can. Plex86 is under the LGPL license. Last time I checked DOSEMU > was under the GPL. Therefore, Plex86--which uses the LGPL--has an > incompatible license and cannot be cross-linked with any GPL project's > internal code. This means that Plex86 can use code orignally written for > DOSEMU, or any other GPL'd project. > > > > A while ago I posted to a mathematics newsgroup a method for calculating > > square roots. That post was intended to teach people who don't know how to > > calculate the square root of a number like 3, with only a paper and a > > pencil. Many people claimed it wouldn't work. Then someone realized that it > > was a special case of what mathematics textbooks call Newton's Iteration; > > then those people moved on to say, OK it will work, but everyone already > > knows it and besides Newton figured it out long before me so it doesn't > > matter, does it? > This is true to a point. Remember, people in Newton's day thought of Math > and Science as something to be shared at no cost. These days intellectual > property is much more sacred to the individual than is used to be. You > are also right to point out that someone has already solved a similar > problem--and that like the mathematician we shouldn't bother to re-create > the wheel. I agree with this argument, but we aren't doing the same thing > that DOSEMU does at the machine level. Therefore we need to solve the > problem ourselves. As far as the argument about code sharing with > bochs--some of the stuff being written for bochs isn't currently suitable > for plex86, and some other stuff just doesn't apply. As for those things > that do seem to be true duplicate projects--I appreciate that people are > willing to point them out--but sometimes duplicate approaches exist for a > reason. We need to as a group be willing to accept both possibilities. > > |^^^ | | |^^| |^^^ Drew Northup, N1XIM |^^| | |^^^ \ / /^^\ /^^~ > |__ | | | | | |__| | |___ \/ |__| |__ > | | | | | | www.plex86.org | | | /\ | | | \ > ___| |__| |__| |___ web.syr.edu/~suoc/ | |___ |___ / \ \__/ \__/ > > > >
