"Bryan J. Smith" wrote:
> "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.
What are you talking about?
What you are saying all of the non GPL'ed linux kernel modules are in
violation of the GPL?!
Guess somebody better stick some lawyers on Nvidia.
Ohh and explain this problem to Linus also.
> > 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
Ohh?! like how...
> -- TheBS
> 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.