Re: 2.6.0-test10-mm1

[Martin J. Bligh]

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:29:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> But I do not think that making a single kernel symbol inaccessible is an
>> appropriate way of resolving a GPFS licensing dispute.
> 
> well, GFPS is a derived work with or without it.  It's just that I remember
> we had that agreement about merging it only with the _GPL export.  In fact
> I'm pretty sure Paul told something about GPLed distributed filesystems from
> IBM in that context..

IBM has (at the very least) 2 clustered filesystems that use this. One is
GPL'ed, the other (GPFS) is not.

M.

-
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/