Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 03 Dec 2006 07:49:12 -0500 | From | Jeff Layton <> | Subject | Re: [RFC][PATCH] ensure i_ino uniqueness in filesystems without permanent inode numbers (via idr) |
| |
Brad Boyer wrote: > > This sounds slightly petty to me. For example, generic_file_read() is > there just to make it easier to implement the read callback, but it > isn't required. In fact, I would think that any filesystem complex > enough to be worth making proprietary would not use it. However, that > doesn't seem to me to be a good argument for marking it GPL-only. The > functionality in question is easier to reimplement, but that doesn't > make it right to force it on people just because of a license choice. >
Yes, most filesystems have their own scheme for managing i_ino assignment, so this is primarily for "pseudo-filesystems". Stuff like pipefs, sockfs, /proc, etc...
>> I'm certainly open to discussion though. Is there a compelling reason to >> open this up to proprietary software authors? > > I don't think there is a compelling reason to open it up since the > functionality could be reimplemented if needed, but I also think > the only reason it is being marked GPL-only is the very common > attitude that there should not be any proprietary modules. > > To be honest, I think it looks bad for someone associated with redhat > to be suggesting that life should be made more difficult for those > who write proprietary software on Linux. The support from commercial > software is a major reason for the success of the RHEL product line. > I can't imagine that this attitude will affect support from software > companies as long as there is a demand for software on Linux, but > it isn't exactly supportive. >
I have no problem with someone writing, selling and supporting proprietary modules. Knock yourself out. I just don't see a reason why I should contribute code to such an effort.
Still though, this was coded in part on company time. I certainly don't want to go against Red Hat's policy in such a matter, so I'll do some due diligence internally as to how this should be done.
In the meantime, does anyone have objections or comments on this approach on technical grounds?
Thanks, Jeff - 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/
| |