licenses (for apple OSX and others)?
curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow Apple and other vendors to adopt it? as end users, having one good file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be heaven... -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
RE: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?
From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ivo welch curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow Apple and other vendors to adopt it? No. The source code is copyrighted by many different entities, and the only way to release it under any other license would require all of the contributors to mutually agree. It'll never happen. Likewise, perhaps Apple could release their code under a license that's compatible with GPL, but I seriously doubt that would ever happen. as end users, having one good file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be heaven... Agreed. But the various producers of filesystems are generally commercial entities interested in making a profit. For various reasons, many of them intentionally don't go this direction. They're all trying to differentiate themselves. Generally speaking, the problem is the requirement to integrate some other FS into a kernel or other component that requires license compatibility for booting. Generally speaking you can circumvent this problem by using things like Fuse to mount a filesystem in user space, thus not requiring it to be built into the kernel, thus eliminating any license compatibility problems. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?
thx, ed. this is a case where I am wondering whether EVERYONE, including all the commercial contributors to btrfs, would be better off with another additional license that also allowed kernel integration for companies like Apple. the decision-making (and rights) for btrfs are so dispersed, however, that we may all end up with a worse outcome, including the commercial and other contributors. (perhaps, it would be worth asking them, if a mailing list of contributors to btrfs existed.) I am and I am not a fan of Apple. they scare me. I am afraid that Apple will be much worse than IBM and Microsoft ever were. I would rather not see them get more than 20% market share. still, the world is what it is. now, specifically, which contributors to btrfs would it hurt if Apple were allowed to integrate the code into its kernel to make btrfs its main file system? I can only think of Microsoft as a company that might be hurt. FAT is the universal file system now, and it could lose that status. Microsoft may not have wanted to contribute to btrfs in this case to begin with. did they ever contribute here? I cannot imagine that any server company, like Sun, Oracle, or IBM, would be worse off if OSX and linux would both use btrfs. it would probably make their life a whole lot easier. linux on the desktop would be MUCH better off compared to the current situation with everyone using their own almost-compatible file system, and more so than OSX on the desktop would be better off. (linux on the server would probably be mildly better off, but here one can argue that Apple would get more than it contributes.) besides, the btrfs system would control the evolution of btrfs, not Apple. just my two cents... /iaw On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Edward Ned Harvey ker...@nedharvey.com wrote: From: linux-btrfs-ow...@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs- ow...@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ivo welch curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow Apple and other vendors to adopt it? No. The source code is copyrighted by many different entities, and the only way to release it under any other license would require all of the contributors to mutually agree. It'll never happen. Likewise, perhaps Apple could release their code under a license that's compatible with GPL, but I seriously doubt that would ever happen. as end users, having one good file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be heaven... Agreed. But the various producers of filesystems are generally commercial entities interested in making a profit. For various reasons, many of them intentionally don't go this direction. They're all trying to differentiate themselves. Generally speaking, the problem is the requirement to integrate some other FS into a kernel or other component that requires license compatibility for booting. Generally speaking you can circumvent this problem by using things like Fuse to mount a filesystem in user space, thus not requiring it to be built into the kernel, thus eliminating any license compatibility problems. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 19:34, ivo welch ivo...@gmail.com wrote: curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow Apple and other vendors to adopt it? Great question, Ivo. And it turns out, btrfs is already licensed to permit commercial use, integration into other products, and resale. The license of btrfs isn't stopping Apple or Microsoft from using btrfs. All licenses have terms (You should read the terms on some of Apple and Microsoft's software), but so long as they don't violate any terms, they are welcome to use all parts of the btrfs code for their corporation's profit, and their customer's benefit. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?
On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Billy Crook billycr...@gmail.com wrote: On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 19:34, ivo welch ivo...@gmail.com wrote: curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow Apple and other vendors to adopt it? Great question, Ivo. And it turns out, btrfs is already licensed to permit commercial use, integration into other products, and resale. The license of btrfs isn't stopping Apple or Microsoft from using btrfs. All licenses have terms (You should read the terms on some of Apple and Microsoft's software), but so long as they don't violate any terms, they are welcome to use all parts of the btrfs code for their corporation's profit, and their customer's benefit. ... and while some will certainly argue one way or another, this is a case where (IMO) the code for btrfs (as a module) is clearly distinct from the OSX kernel (as it was not even designed for it originally) and would not constitute far reaching public release of Apple IP ... though tbh i know nothing about OSX kernel and whether it support things like dynamic modules, so i could be mistaken ... ... but im confident there is a way Apple could wire it up so IP release could be very small or nonexistent. or maintain a port if they so wished. the real question is whether or not they would even desire using it with infrastructure around HFS+/etc ... in my observations Apple and friends are incredibly ... ehm ... selective -- the hardware and everything above it *must* have the `Seal of Approval` -- maybe to reduce/isolate their problem pool or maintain it's clique-crazed chic aura :-), i dont know, but it's not for the end-user's flexibility -- that's for sure. the glaring example to me is virtually the entire mobile/handheld/device industry deciding on micro-USB as the power+data xchange connection *except* one infamous product line ... but meh, who really knows anyway; it certainly would be incredibly cool to have a common denominator greater than FAT, especially since commodity flash chips are 8-16GB now. -- C Anthony -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
