xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

[humor] Re: XFS...Windows?

To: <xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: [humor] Re: XFS...Windows?
From: Jeffrey Hundstad <jeffrey.hundstad@xxxxxxxx>
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 14:33:54 -0600
Delivered-to: xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <52A5F249.1060505@xxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <000001cef46c$ab687cc0$02397640$@mail.com> <52A5F249.1060505@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20131103 Icedove/17.0.10
On 12/09/2013 10:39 AM, Eric Sandeen wrote:
On 12/8/13, 5:24 PM, Yuji Saeki wrote:
Congratulations on your file system, it’s quite nice. I’ve
benchmarked it myself, it’s very impressive. I’m curious though, is
there are thought to a Windows driver? If someone ported the most
current-stable version to Windows (free) under the same license ‘GNU
Lesser General Public License’ with entire credit to XFS
XFS isn't under the LGPL, it's GPL, as is the rest of the kernel code,
and the license terms should be quite clear.

would SGI
be okay with that? A ‘no-warranty implied’ (etc) kind of protection
of course. Quite a few devs that I work with enjoy the XFS filesystem
and we dev in both Linux and Windows. We’re very interested in making
this happen with respect to the XFS project.
I'm not a lawyer, but it's not really an issue of opinion - it's a legal
matter.  If you can port XFS to Windows while maintaining the terms
of the license agreements on both ends, you're free to do so.

The technical difficulty of such a task is another matter as well.  :)

<humor>
To keep it standards compliant with your new OS, you'd want to change it just a tiny bit to make it incompatible with the normal XFS, patent that bit and claim it's an industry standard.
</humor>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>