From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267195AbUBSA3U (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:29:20 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267194AbUBSA3U (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:29:20 -0500 Received: from fw.osdl.org ([65.172.181.6]:7343 "EHLO mail.osdl.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267197AbUBSA1X (ORCPT ); Wed, 18 Feb 2004 19:27:23 -0500 Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2004 16:28:58 -0800 From: Andrew Morton To: Christoph Hellwig Cc: hch@infradead.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org Subject: Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range Message-Id: <20040218162858.2a230401.akpm@osdl.org> In-Reply-To: <20040218230055.A14889@infradead.org> References: <20040216190927.GA2969@us.ibm.com> <20040217073522.A25921@infradead.org> <20040217124001.GA1267@us.ibm.com> <20040217161929.7e6b2a61.akpm@osdl.org> <1077108694.4479.4.camel@laptop.fenrus.com> <20040218140021.GB1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218211035.A13866@infradead.org> <20040218150607.GE1269@us.ibm.com> <20040218222138.A14585@infradead.org> <20040218145132.460214b5.akpm@osdl.org> <20040218230055.A14889@infradead.org> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.7 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i586-pc-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > Yes. Andrew, please read the GPL, it's very clear about derived works. > Then please tell me why you think gpfs is not a derived work. OK, so I looked at the wrapper. It wasn't a tremendously pleasant experience. It is huge, and uses fairly standard-looking filesytem interfaces and locking primitives. Also some awareness of NFSV4 for some reason. Still, the wrapper is GPL so this is not relevant. Its only use is to tell us whether or not the non-GPL bits are "derived" from Linux, and it doesn't do that. The GPL doesn't define a derived work. It says "If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, ..." And the "But when you distribute..." part is what the Linus doctrine rubs out. Because it is unreasonable to say that a large piece of work such as this is "derived" from Linux. Why do you believe that GPFS represents a kernel licensing violation?