From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S267221AbUBSMbT (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:31:19 -0500 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S267227AbUBSMbT (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:31:19 -0500 Received: from phoenix.infradead.org ([213.86.99.234]:27411 "EHLO phoenix.infradead.org") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S267221AbUBSMbS (ORCPT ); Thu, 19 Feb 2004 07:31:18 -0500 Date: Thu, 19 Feb 2004 12:31:10 +0000 From: Christoph Hellwig To: Andrew Morton , torvalds@osd.org Cc: Christoph Hellwig , 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: <20040219123110.A22406@infradead.org> Mail-Followup-To: Christoph Hellwig , Andrew Morton , torvalds@osd.org, paulmck@us.ibm.com, arjanv@redhat.com, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-mm@kvack.org References: <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> <20040218162858.2a230401.akpm@osdl.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5.1i In-Reply-To: <20040218162858.2a230401.akpm@osdl.org>; from akpm@osdl.org on Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:28:58PM -0800 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:28:58PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote: > 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. And pokes deep into internal structures that it shouldn't. > Still, the wrapper is GPL so this is not relevant. It's BSD licensed - they couldn't distribute it together with GPFS if it was GPL. > Its only use is to tell > us whether or not the non-GPL bits are "derived" from Linux, and it > doesn't do that. Well, something that needs an almost one megabyte big wrapper per defintion is not a standalone work but something that's deeply interwinded with the kernel. The tons of kernel version checks certainly show it's poking deeper than it should. > Why do you believe that GPFS represents a kernel licensing violation? See above. Something that pokes deep into internal structures and even needs new exports certainly is a derived work. There's a few different interpretations of the derived works clause in the GPL around, the FSF one wouldn't allow binary modules at all, and Linus' one is also pretty strict.