"Nathan J. Mehl" wrote:
> Why on earth do you make this assertion? Solaris supports loadable
> independent kernel modules just as linux does -- implementing xfs on
> solaris in a way that didn't "contaminate" the kernel with the GPL
> would be a pretty straightforward exercise. (Well, at least, it would
> probably not add significantly to the effort involved in a Solaris
> port to begin with, which might be high.)
Actually, I think everyone here is failing to realize this canNOT be
done via the GPL, unless you add the provision. Dynamically
linking/loading is normally allowed via the Lesser GPL (LGPL). But
as the holder of the copyrights, it is upto SGI to determine what is
allowable and what is not.
> I think we're all in agreement that a BSD-style license doesn't get
> SGI anything but goodwill from the xBSD camp. I just think the
> paranoia about Sun is probably unjustified: as I've pointed out
> elsewhere, they gain little and potentially lose a lot by adopting
> XFS into Solaris's base distribution.
Sun Solaris was just an example. The number of "threats" to SGI's
IP would be a lot greater than you think if they released XFS as BSD
Bryan J. Smith mailto:b.j.smith@xxxxxxxx chat:thebs413
SmithConcepts, Inc. http://www.SmithConcepts.com
Linux 'Worms' exploit known security holes that were fixed
3-12 months earlier. NT/2000 'Worms' exploit unknown se-
curity holes that won't be fixed for another 3-12 months.