Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 26 Nov 2003 05:29:00 -0800 | From | Andrew Morton <> | Subject | Re: 2.6.0-test10-mm1 |
| |
Christoph Hellwig <hch@infradead.org> 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?
Nope.
> 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@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
| |