[lkml]   [1999]   [Nov]   [10]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: Reiserfs licencing - possible GPL conflict?

Dear Greg,

You've got a pretty foul mouth. I think more is better for Linux.
Linux could use more FS's and features, and I think having a B++ tree
tht overlays EXT2 is pretty cool. Also, a grep of the Linux source base
for the name "Greg Maxwell" returns <NULL> which is how much weight I am
going to give your comments. You can call Andrew McCullough at
801-222-9635 if you want to talk to our attorneys (since you asked for
his phone #) if you need to understand his thinking about the GPL. He's
53 years old, and has been doing IP law for about 25 years. Hope this


Greg Maxwell wrote:
> "Jeff V. Merkey" wrote:
> > My attorneys have reviewed this license and they tell me that this means
> > that the ReiserFS is ***NOT*** open sourced. Using it with this
> > restriction makes any commercial vendors who want to ship it liable for
> > damages claims, since the act of shipping it means they will integrate
> > it with an OS. We thought of doing something similiar with NWFS, but
> > our attorneys, after spending several weeks examining the GPL and
> > reviewing case law for open source IP, advised us is that we either
> > could "give it all away" or restrict it, but that if we placed any
> > restrictions on it, it wasn't open sourced. If you place any use
> > restrictions, then you are in essence not releasing as "open" source.
> > As such, we opted for the full GPL with no restrictions, since they
> > defeat the whole purpose under current US law. I know lots of folks
> > want to maintain some control (which is not a bad thing if you are
> > trying to turn a profit), but they should understand that a GPL+ license
> > scheme defeats the whole point and makes the stuff less attractive .....
> Jeff, cut the bullshit. This isn't the first time you've fudded
> something on the list. Your lies are NOT appricated. (i.e. do a archive
> search for your name and GPL).
> Legally there is NO such thing as 'open source'. There is the OSD, which
> this should be completely okay with.
> I'd like to know the name of your attorneys as I can't believe that a
> real attorney would make such a bold statement on just a few hours
> consideration. Perhaps you should be looking for a new attorney?
> Furthermore, if you actually bother to read the poor english license of
> the code, it's aparent that the language is intended to limit use but
> distribution, as the GPL already does. It looks like all he is trying to
> do is preventing someone like Netware (or netapp!) from just taking his
> FS.
> I agree that Hans should clear it up. I'm sure he will real soon.
> Perhaps you are just afraid that new developments like ReiserFS are
> making your efforts on the near dead NWFS increasingly pointless?
> I wonder why your wonderful attorneys forgot to warn you that you can
> get in trouble for making false comments about a compeating product, and
> advise you to keep your mouth shut?
> Strange.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:54    [W:0.114 / U:1.216 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site