Thanks for starting the conversation with us. I completely agree with
Tom that it is important for OpenSolaris to work with the necessary
parties to not create chaos. Ignoring copyrights or ignoring licenses is
not what were about. Finding how to work together is much more fun and
ultimately better for all involved.
... I too feel it would be outstanding to see this technology as part
of OpenSolaris, and want to assist all interested parties make this a
reality. To that end, I've done a bit of research on the licensing
question and I have some answers below....
On 11/13/07 16:35, Phillip Lougher wrote:
> Tom Haynes wrote:
>
>> Phillip,
>>
>> [snip comments about copyrights]
>>
>>
>> Could I get you to answer a different question? Would you be interested
>> in a leading
>> a project to port Squashfs to OpenSolaris? Are the technical challenges
>> interesting?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, and I think the technical challenges could be interesting. My
> reticence would be complete lack of knowledge of the Solaris VFS
> interface. I don't believe reading the original papers on the Sun
> VFS interface in the late 80s counts (that would have been SunOS, not
> Solaris anyway)...
>
>
>
This is great to hear that you are interested in assisting as a lead.
I've heard that there may be a TOI coming shortly on the VFS layer.
There we some pretty intense changes made in the VFS layer when for the
CIFS project and many are wanting to know more. Watch this list for more
information ...
>> And if you did so, would you explore the licensing issues?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I would. The issue is less a case of "throwing my toys out
> of the pram" because I only want to license under the GPL, but
> more the serious issue that the Squashfs kernel code doesn't make
> a distinction between core Squashfs filesystem code and Linux
> VFS interfacing code. Due to this at the moment the whole lot counts
> as a derived work of the Linux kernel, and so must be licensed
> under the GPL.
>
> At the moment to license under CDDL I would have to split the
> code into two parts, a Squashfs filesystem core, and a Linux
> VFS interface wrapper. The alternative which may take less
> work is to base the code on Unsquashfs, which is a separate
> independent implementation which isn't derived from anything.
>
> I'll have to study the code and think about the options.
>
>
In my conversations with licensing knowledgeable folks you are correct
about splitting the license. For the kernel, you are correct that any
code would have to be licensed with a CDDL friendly license (CDDL, BSD,
MIT, MPL or others). But the userland code can remain GPL if you desire.
The option of Unsqashfs is interesting and it is great to see you are
open to considering this option.
As I stated before great to have your voice here and I look forward to
helping any/all make this project a reality (if approved).
--jc
> Rergards
>
> Phillip
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Tom
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> storage-discuss mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
>
_______________________________________________
storage-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/storage-discuss
