From: Andrew Morton
Date: Wed Nov 26 2003 - 08:24:39 EST
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 04:42:51AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > The individual patches in the broken-out/ directory are usually
> > changelogged. This one says:
> > It was EXPORT_SYMBOL_GPL(), however IBM's GPFS is not GPL.
> > - the GPFS team contributed to the testing and development of
> > invaldiate_mmap_range().
> > - GPFS was developed under AIX and was ported to Linux, and hence meets
> > Linus's "some binary modules are OK" exemption.
> > - The export makes sense: clustering filesystems need it for shootdowns to
> > ensure cache coherency.
> Have you actually looked at the gpfs glue code?
> something that digs that deep
> into the VM and VFS actually _must_ be derived work.
Could be. I'm surprised that they need a glue layer at all actually.
> Or do wed allow people
> now to pay a developer tax to buy themselves free from GPL restrictions.
Well I think that restructuring the pagecache invalidaton in such a way
that it is useful for non-derived clustered filesytems does give one some
rights to actually use that code. It seems a bit rude to take the code but
to make it unusable.
> I as one of the collective copytight holders of the kernel strongly disagree
> with that, it can't be true that IBM can just ignore copyright law..
Well if people have problems with it then I don't feel strongly enough
about it to dispute that, frankly.
But I do not think that making a single kernel symbol inaccessible is an
appropriate way of resolving a GPFS licensing dispute.
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/