[SUGGESTION] - JFS for FreeBSD
Hiten Pandya
this is a wild idea...suggestion...
i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
src/gnu/
It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
for
high performance and maximum throughput...
=====
-Hiten,
Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<hi...@uk.freebsd.org>
<http://www.geocities.com/hitmaster2k>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Josef Karthauser
> hi all,
>
> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
Hi Hiten,
Search the mail list archives (from www.freebsd.org) for JFS and XFS.
You'll see that there have been many discussions about this over the
last few years.
Joe
Greg Lehey
Long-short syndrome in first message.
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 14:01:53 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
> hi all,
>
> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>
> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and is licensed under
> GPL, so we could put this into src/gnu/
Well, JFS was developed by IBM for AIX. If you look at the header
files, it is clearly derived from UFS. They later developed a
completely new file system, JFS2, for OS/2, and later ported this
version to Linux. It's also available for AIX, but the standard AIX
file system is still the old JFS1.
> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers for high
> performance and maximum throughput...
I don't think the zSeries (System/390) runs JFS. As I said above, the
RS/6000 uses a different JFS file system.
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>> * Hiten Pandya <hitma...@yahoo.com> [011210 16:02] wrote:
>>> hi all,
>>>
>>> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>>>
>>> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
>>> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>>>
>>> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
>>> is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
>>> src/gnu/
>>>
>>> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
>>> for
>>> high performance and maximum throughput...
>>
>> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>>
>> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
>> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>>
>> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
>> when you're done.
>
> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits),
> and have had this on my TODO list for a while.
Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS. I've
thought (and spoken) about this from time to time. It would be a lot
of work.
> The licence issue is a real sticky point, especially since the GPL
> and BSD licences are like oil and water. Because of the GPL
> licence, JFS support can never become part of the GENERIC kernel,
> and any related support tools will have to exist as separate
> binaries (newfs.jfs, fsck.jfs), as is currently done with the EXT2FS
> filesystem.
As others have pointed out, this is a detail. The real question is:
will JFS2 buy anything? The only real way to find out is to try it.
On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote:
> I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates
> option similar?
No, at least not from a technical standpoint. From a user standpoint,
they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it
in very different ways.
> perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
> options SOFTERUPDATES
> as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
And what would that do?
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Greg Lehey
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:39:35 -0500, Matthew Emmerton wrote:
>>> * Hiten Pandya <hitma...@yahoo.com> [011210 16:02] wrote:
>>>> hi all,
>>>>
>>>> this is a wild idea...suggestion...
>>>>
>>>> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
>>>> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>>>>
>>>> as for JFS, it is developed by IBM for Linux and
>>>> is licensed under GPL, so we could put this into
>>>> src/gnu/
>>>>
>>>> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
>>>> for
>>>> high performance and maximum throughput...
>>>
>>> I'm glad you took the time to read the marketting literature.
>>>
>>> The problem is that porting it is going to be a bit more complicated
>>> than just dumping it into src/gnu.
>>>
>>> Feel free to take a shot at porting it though, let us know
>>> when you're done.
>>
>> I'm gainfully employed by IBM (although not for FreeBSD pursuits),
>> and have had this on my TODO list for a while.
>
> Well, I'm gainfully employed by IBM, both for FreeBSD and JFS. I've
> thought (and spoken) about this from time to time. It would be a lot
> of work.
BTW, if anybody wants to do it anyway, let me know. I'm in a position
to help with information, though possibly not with coding.
Greg
--
Brandon D. Valentine
>On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 17:47:11 -0500, Anthony Schneider wrote:
>> perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
>> options SOFTERUPDATES
>> as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
>
>And what would that do?
SOFTERUPDATES includes a switch to diffused gallery lighting and
enhanced mood music. For the hacker in touch with his feminine side, it
offers the ultimate in warm fuzzies.
Brandon D. Valentine
--
"Iam mens praetrepidans avet vagari."
- G. Valerius Catullus, Carmina, XLVI
Anthony Schneider
> > I'm no expert on journaled filesystems, but isn't the freebsd softupdates
> > option similar?
>
> No, at least not from a technical standpoint. From a user standpoint,
> they both try to make things faster and more reliable, but they do it
> in very different ways.
>
Well, perhaps I should have made that clearer: I am not an expert on either
journaled filesystems not am I an expert on FreeBSD's softupdates option,
technically or other.
> > perhaps there could be an upgrade to offer
> > options SOFTERUPDATES
> > as an equal-but-different alternative to jfs?
>
> And what would that do?
My thoughts were that if the two were similar in effect that it might be
a relatively easy project to escalate towards achieving the same effects
in one as the other. I understand that this is not necessarily the case.
> Greg
-Anthony.
Terry Lambert
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would
not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.
I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.
> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> for high performance and maximum throughput...
No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
the good AIX JFS code.
-- Terry
Greg Lehey
> Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
>> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>
> Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would
> not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
> where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
> still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.
>
> I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.
Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would
be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong
opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
if it will buy us anything.
>> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
>> for high performance and maximum throughput...
>
> No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> the good AIX JFS code.
That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the
structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared
performance.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Terry Lambert
> Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would
> be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong
> opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> if it will buy us anything.
?
OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which
is a JFS. I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
Do you see the problem yet?
> >> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> >> for high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> > the good AIX JFS code.
>
> That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
> it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the
> structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared
> performance.
None of the Web Connections RS/6000 machines ran this OS/2 derived
code. I was under the impression that it was there for Linux
compatability. My impression is, layout or not, the original JFS
is much better code, overall.
-- Terry
Maxim Sobolev
>
> Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> > before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would
> > be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong
> > opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> > see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> > if it will buy us anything.
>
> ?
>
> OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which
> is a JFS. I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
>
> Do you see the problem yet?
Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading
files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader
can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code.
:) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which
could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader.
-Maxim
Peter Wemm
> Greg Lehey wrote:
> > Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> > before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would
> > be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong
> > opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> > see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> > if it will buy us anything.
>
> ?
>
> OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which
> is a JFS. I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
>
> Do you see the problem yet?
It is not a problem. The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader
itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be
written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough. Or have /boot
as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32). We do this on IA64 where
/boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough. I usually
mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI
we have a /boot as well).
Cheers,
-Peter
--
Peter Wemm - pe...@FreeBSD.org; pe...@yahoo-inc.com; pe...@netplex.com.au
"All of this is for nothing if we don't go to the stars" - JMS/B5
Terry Lambert
> > OK, I load the kernel from the JFS. I mount the root FS, which
> > is a JFS. I read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can
> > mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I can read the module "jfs.ko"
> > from the JFS so that I can mount the root FS, which is a JFS, so I
> > can read the module "jfs.ko" from the JFS so that I can mount the
> > root FS, which is a JFS, so I can...
> >
> > Do you see the problem yet?
>
> Libstand (and hence the loader) could be extended to allow reading
> files from jfs without using any GPL'ed code. For example our loader
> can load modules from the FAT even though we do not have any M$ code.
> :) Alternatively, /boot could be placed on separate filesystem, which
> could be ufs or anything else supported by the loader.
Patches appreciated.
Note that if you do a read-only JFS, you are more than half way there
to a n0n-GPL'ed implementation, so you might as well finish it off,
instead of porting the IBM code.
Terry Lambert
> It is not a problem. The *kernel* does not load jfs.ko, it is loader
> itself. There is no reason why a trivial non-gpl jfs reader couldn't be
> written for boot2 and loader if the need was great enough. Or have /boot
> as a seperate file system (eg: UFS or FAT32). We do this on IA64 where
> /boot is a FAT32 filesystem (not exactly, but close enough. I usually
> mount it on /efi and make /boot/ a symlink to /efi/boot so that in EFI
> we have a /boot as well).
JFS patches?
Sysinstall patches?
/usr/src/lib/stand patches?
/usr/src/sys/boot/* patches?
8^).
--- Terry
Joerg Wunsch
> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow
compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to
Solaris 8 UFS+logging. Of course, i know it has other advantages,
but the journalling feature doesn't seem to be the best. Even
my notebook with its slooow (low-power) IDE drive is faster than
Solaris 8 fibre-channel disks running with VxFS. ;-)
("faster" means in terms of filesystem metadata operation, like file
creations and deletions, since that's the area you normally want to
employ journalling or softupdates for.)
--
cheers, J"org .-.-. --... ...-- -.. . DL8DTL
http://www.sax.de/~joerg/ NIC: JW11-RIPE
Never trust an operating system you don't have sources for. ;-)
Steve Kargl
> Hiten Pandya <hitma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
>
> As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow
> compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to
[This is directed at Joerg, but I deleted the original email.
URL is wrapped with a \.]
http://www.usenix.org/publications/library/proceedings/usenix2000/general\
/full_papers/seltzer/seltzer_html/index.html
--
Steve
Steve Kargl
> On Tue, Dec 11, 2001 at 10:27:54PM +0100, Joerg Wunsch wrote:
> > Hiten Pandya <hitma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> > > JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> >
> > As long as nobody gets the idea to import VxFS... It's dog slow
> > compared to UFS+softupdates. :-) Dog slow even compared to
>
> [This is directed at Joerg, but I deleted the original email.
not
Greg Lehey
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>>> transactioning changes to the FreeBSD VFS layer consumers (the
>>> system calls and NFS server code) would be necessary to make
>>> the journal roll-back function correctly, following a failure.
>>>
>>> (*) Trivial: meaning grunt work is required; not necessarily an
>>> indicator of the amount of work, only the intellectual effort
>>> required for the job
>>
>> Considering that the current UFS implementation didn't need to be
>> ported, and people are still working on the details, I think that this
>> is a highly misleading statement.
>
> The current UFS has a number of issues which make it non-trivial;
> it was, in effect, a port; here is the short list:
>
> <snip>
>
> Live code always has issues, particularly if you are trying to
> pound a round peg into a square hole (hence Kirk taking up the
> task of a redesign).
Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items
for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.
> I think that everyone saying "Ut oh! SCARY!" gives people the wrong
> idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?". As I
said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.
On Tuesday, 11 December 2001 at 2:26:45 -0800, Hiten Pandya wrote:
>> [... Hiten want's to GPL'ify FreeBSD ...]
>
> hi,
> first of all, i would like to clear of some point which have been
> taken wrongly.
>
> o My Intentions were never to GPL'ify FreeBSD :-)
Agreed, I don't think anybody thought that.
> o The reason i started this discussion was because
> i think JFS/JFS2 would be a nice addition to
> FreeBSD like the rest of the other filesystems.
>
> o The JFS does _not_ have to be root, and even if
> people were to download it because it is GPL'ed,
> the size of the filesystem is only around 1.0MB
If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
file system too.
> o It is hard to Port AIX or OS/2 based code, but we
> have to agree that, BSD Users were meant to take
> that kind of challenges, have taken before
It's probably easier to port AIX based code than OS/2 or Linux based
code.
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Terry Lambert
> Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
> been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items
> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.
I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
time to be a competitive threat).
I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list
of items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the
JFS specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly
two items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction
abort).
> > I think that everyone saying "Ut oh! SCARY!" gives people the wrong
> > idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
>
> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?". As I
> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.
I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
about 2 hours. If FreeBSD had the necessary hardware drivers for
shared disks, I would have finished the two that I didn't do, and then
I would have gone to Frys, bought the necessary controllers, disk, and
two scratch boxes, and finished porting the whole damn thing. I think
I could have it all up and running in about 4 weeks, assuming the Linux
implementation actually works for more than one machine, and my test
machines were configured dual boot for Linux/FreeBSD. Unlike IBM, the
GFS people have indicated a willingness to bend on the license issue.
When I say "trivial", I mean "trivial", as the term is used in physics
or mathematics: a well understood operation that can be performed rote,
and does not require significant original thinking to perform.
When I say "where are the patches?" I mean "that's an incredibly
stupid idea, given the license, and you aren't going to get me to do
that work without paying me, so you might as well send patches -- do
the work yourself -- because you are going to have a hell of a time
getting buy-in from anyone clued enough to do the work for you".
> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
> file system too.
Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
and linked code not being GPL'ed).
What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
big site admins who build their own kernels, and never expect to
sell their company to anyone (or are prepared to recompile all the
kernels on all their machines, should the company ever sell, since
they can't transfer ownership of a FreeBSD kernel with GPL'ed code
in it directly, without violating the license)?
RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
-- Terry
Greg Lehey
> Greg Lehey wrote:
>> Of course. But you're missing the point: ufs is *not* a port, it has
>> been with BSD since the beginning. There is a similar list of items
>> for JFS which would need to be addressed, with the additional issue of
>> the fact that it was not designed for FreeBSD.
>
> I maintain that the FreeBSD UFS *is* a port of the Heidemann
> implementation from the FICUS project, which had to be done because
> certain files were claimed to be "contaminated" with USL IP, and
> were removed as part of the USL/UCB settlement (6 key files from 5
> subsystems, which they thought we couldn't rewrite from scratch in
> time to be a competitive threat).
Which files? Did they require adapting to a different environment?
> I also maintain that the most difficult thing is getting the list of
> items, and, with the information from the UFS work in hand, the JFS
> specific items not on that list are trivial (there are exactly two
> items, in fact: log roll forward/backward, and transaction abort).
I'd expect these to be the easiest parts, since they don't have too
much to do with the rest of the system. One of the issues with Linux
is that the interface to the rest of the system, and I don't expect
these parts to have much interfacing to do.
>>> I think that everyone saying "Ut oh! SCARY!" gives people the wrong
>>> idea, and scares off potential contributors in these areas.
>>
>> I'm not saying that. I'm saying that it's non-trivial, which I
>> suppose is what you mean when you say "where are the patches?". As I
>> said, I'm quite happy to help people port JFS2 to FreeBSD.
>
> I ported the entire GFS user space tools set, sans two, to FreeBSD in
> about 2 hours.
I expect the user space tools for JFS2 to be pretty straightforward
too.
>> If we port JFS2, it will be relatively trivial to have it as the root
>> file system too.
>
> Only, you will never be able to build a firewall, router, or other
> product that ships with it statically linked into the kernel, since
> that would violate the terms of the GPL (additional restrictions,
> and linked code not being GPL'ed).
Fine, so we load the module. What's your point?
> What good is the damn thing, if the only people who can use it are
> ...
Well, I suppose it'll still be good for them. Maybe.
> RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
> distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
> work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
> I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
You want me personally to get him to agree that loading modules at
boot time does not violate the GPL?
Greg
--
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Andrew Kenneth Milton
|
| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
| I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
Just to balance this point out;
Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
a consideration?
Not everyone has the religious conviction of RMS. In 1983 RMS promised a
kernel for GNU too, it hasn't arrived yet. He talks a lot. Remeber to
factor that into your decisions d8)
--
Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton
The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | |
ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon
PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |a...@theinternet.com.au|
Hiten Pandya
why would RMS sue, lets say me, for porting IBM's
piece of GPL'ed code to FreeBSD src/gnu.
What i will be doing (if the votes come out positive),
will be exactly as how his law says...
--- Poul-Henning Kamp <p...@critter.freebsd.dk> wrote:
> In message
> <2001121220...@zeus.theinternet.com.au>,
> Andrew Kenneth Milt
> on writes:
> >+-------[ Terry Lambert ]----------------------
> >|
> >| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people
> distributing bipartite
> >| distributions, where the linking is delayed until
> installation to
> >| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his
> religious convictions,
> >| I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your
> decision.
> >
> >Just to balance this point out;
> >
> >Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of
> any significance has
> >RMS contributed recently to this or any other
> project where this would be
> >a consideration?
>
> Uh, people have been signing their copyright over to
> FSF for a long
> time...
>
> --
> Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
> p...@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
> FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
> Never attribute to malice what can adequately be
> explained by incompetence.
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of
> the message
=====
-Hiten,
Thank You,
Yours Sincerely,
Hiten Pandya,
<hi...@uk.freebsd.org>
<http://www.geocities.com/hitmaster2k>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Check out Yahoo! Shopping and Yahoo! Auctions for all of
your unique holiday gifts! Buy at http://shopping.yahoo.com
or bid at http://auctions.yahoo.com
Poul-Henning Kamp
>|
>| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
>| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
>| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
>| I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
>
>Just to balance this point out;
>
>Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
>RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
>a consideration?
Uh, people have been signing their copyright over to FSF for a long
time...
--
Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
p...@FreeBSD.ORG | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer | BSD since 4.3-tahoe
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Andrew Kenneth Milton
| In message <2001121220...@zeus.theinternet.com.au>, Andrew Kenneth Milt
| on writes:
| >+-------[ Terry Lambert ]----------------------
| >|
| >| RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
| >| distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
| >| work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
| >| I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
| >
| >Just to balance this point out;
| >
| >Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
| >RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
| >a consideration?
|
| Uh, people have been signing their copyright over to FSF for a long
| time...
That still doesn't answer the question though. I'm pretty sure IBM didn't
sign *their* copyright over to the FSF.
--
Totally Holistic Enterprises Internet| | Andrew Milton
The Internet (Aust) Pty Ltd | |
ACN: 082 081 472 ABN: 83 082 081 472 | M:+61 416 022 411 | Carpe Daemon
PO Box 837 Indooroopilly QLD 4068 |a...@theinternet.com.au|
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majo...@FreeBSD.org
Andrew Kenneth Milton
|
| > Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
| > RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
| > a consideration?
|
| they were oh so happy to consider another license for the year I tried
| to push for it for use in a FreeBSD based IBM product. Not.
Of course not, the GPL protects them from competitors taking and improving
their product and selling it at a profit without having to share. Ironic
isn't it, that the GPL has become a tool of the "oppressors" d8)
Terry Lambert
> why would RMS sue, lets say me, for porting IBM's
> piece of GPL'ed code to FreeBSD src/gnu.
RMS wouldn't, not being directly involved. IBM might.
I am a former IBM employee, of IBM GSB division (Global Small
Business). I became an IBM employee when IBM bought Whistle
Communications, Inc., which produced a SOHO connectivity
product called the InterJet. This became the basis of the IBM
Web Connections offering (the purchase of Whistle was portrayed
as a time-to-market decision).
The InterJet II product is what funded the Soft Updates port
to FreeBSD. The idea was to get rid of the internal UPS that
was otherwise required, to reduce the COGS (Cost Of Goods Sold).
With Soft Updates, we were able to replace the UPS with a power
supply with a large DC holdup time, and AC fail notification.
This work occured mostly before the IBM acquisition.
When the GPL JFS was announced, I tried within IBM for a year
to get the code under other terms for use in an IBM GSB product,
specifically, the InterJet. The people involved were on a
religious/marketing GPL crusade, however.
If we had been able to use a JFS, we would have been able to get
rid of the remainder of the extra cost in the power supply, and
get our costs down further, by using an off-the-shelf supply.
Despite the fact that this was costing another division of IBM
money, the people releasing the JFS refused to relicense, even
for internal use only, the JFS code that they were giving away to
the Linux community (I'm sure that, if the AIX people had the code,
that it was possible, were we to commit a large enough chunk of our
operating budget, to get the code from the AIX people, but the
amortized cost of this would not have reduced our COGS).
With JFS under non-GPL'ed terms, we wuld have been able to get
perhaps another $120 per unit out of the final end customer cost.
In the U.S., this would have let us drop our subscription cost
$10/month. In Japan, it would have dropped ~20,000 Yen from the
total per unit cost.
Forgive me if I don't think that someone outside IBM is going to
have any better luck than a group of high band people inside IBM
who could demonstrate a business case pertinenet to IBMs financial
interests.
-- Terry
Terry Lambert
> +-------[ Terry Lambert ]----------------------
> | RMS has indicated a willingness to sue people distributing bipartite
> | distributions, where the linking is delayed until installation to
> | work around the letter of the GPL. Given his religious convictions,
> | I can't see him *not*. Factor that into your decision.
>
> Just to balance this point out;
>
> Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
> RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
> a consideration?
I can't argue with that; historically, IBM has never sued anyone, and
they were oh so happy to consider another license for the year I tried
to push for it for use in a FreeBSD based IBM product. Not.
8^p
-- Terry
Matthew Dillon
:>Just to balance this point out;
:>
:>Only the copyright holder can do this, what code of any significance has
:>RMS contributed recently to this or any other project where this would be
:>a consideration?
:
:Uh, people have been signing their copyright over to FSF for a long
:time...
:
:--
:Poul-Henning Kamp | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
I am aware that certain long-standing RMS-specific projects,
like emacs, require people who submit patches to sign-over their
copyright, but I am not aware of people generally signing
the copyright for their own GPL'd works over to the FSF. RMS
wnats people to, but as far as I can tell most people have no
desire to.
-Matt
Terry Lambert
> I am aware that certain long-standing RMS-specific projects,
> like emacs, require people who submit patches to sign-over their
> copyright, but I am not aware of people generally signing
> the copyright for their own GPL'd works over to the FSF. RMS
> wnats people to, but as far as I can tell most people have no
> desire to.
The way ReiserFS does this is to affix a contract to the CVS change
submission, or require that the contract be manually affixed to any
email submissions.
The rights are assigned, with the terms being "in consideration for
examination of the submission" (it's not a contract unless there is
consideration and exchange).
The FSF handles this slightly differently, but the practical matter
of the assignment is in effect the same.
-- Terry
Matthew Dillon
:The way ReiserFS does this is to affix a contract to the CVS change
:submission, or require that the contract be manually affixed to any
:email submissions.
:
:The rights are assigned, with the terms being "in consideration for
:examination of the submission" (it's not a contract unless there is
:consideration and exchange).
:
:The FSF handles this slightly differently, but the practical matter
:of the assignment is in effect the same.
:
:-- Terry
Yes, and I'm planning on doing something similar with the Backplane
Database. It's a good idea, just not a good idea to assign your own
works to someone else (e.g. not the FSF). The FSF can do whatever they
want with their own code and can ask contributors to assign rights to
them, but it is totally inappropriate for them to ask people to assign
the copyright for other unrelated GPL'd works to them.
Also, the latest version of the GPL in my view weakens it terribly.
The way it reads, the copyright is not the copyright in the file but
the latest copyright on FSF's site (which theoretically allows the FSF
to update the copyright and have the new version automatically apply
to preexisting works). I don't think it's even close to being legal.
-Matt
Matthew Dillon
<dil...@backplane.com>
Jacques A. Vidrine
> I am aware that certain long-standing RMS-specific projects,
> like emacs, require people who submit patches to sign-over their
> copyright, but I am not aware of people generally signing
> the copyright for their own GPL'd works over to the FSF. RMS
> wnats people to, but as far as I can tell most people have no
> desire to.
All GNU projects appear to work this way. Contributions/patches are
not accepted until you have completed paperwork with the FSF.
I didn't realize how common this was myself until I started hacking on
guile. I don't hack on it anymore.
Cheers,
--
Jacques A. Vidrine <n...@nectar.cc> http://www.nectar.cc/
NTT/Verio SME . FreeBSD UNIX . Heimdal Kerberos
jvid...@verio.net . nec...@FreeBSD.org . nec...@kth.se
Julian Stacey
> The rights are assigned, with the terms being "in consideration for
> examination of the submission" (it's not a contract unless there is
> consideration and exchange).
Don't bet on it ! Law Is .... a mess or a nightmare, variable by
time & location, etc, best avoided :-)
EG:
It can depend which legal jurisdicition one is in. I'm British,
there's a difference I believe between English & Scottish
contract law (Wales & NI using English contract law). One jurisdicition
requires at least a nominal amount of money to exchange for a
contract, whereas the other allows a contract without money involved;
which way round I don't remember.
I've no idea on Germany law (where I am now), & no idea whether
your USA federal law chose to adopt a model from England, Scotland,
Germany or some other imigrants way back, or whether that would be
federal or variable state law. Not that USA law is of particular
importance anyway, it's merely the address of FSF & a bunch of
programmers, but not the address of many other people & sites. I
think some jurisdictions also probably won't consider things as a
legal contract unless it bears a stamp affixed (a tax revenue raiser).
Julian
J.Stacey Munich Unix (FreeBSD, Linux etc) Independent Consultant
Reduce costs to secure jobs: Use free software: http://bim.bsn.com/~jhs/free/
Ihr Rauchen = mein allergischer Kopfschmerz ! Schnupftabak probieren !
Bob Willcox
> On Monday, 10 December 2001 at 22:45:22 -0800, Terry Lambert wrote:
> > Hiten Pandya wrote:
> >> i wanted to ask if there were any _plans_ to port
> >> JFS (Journaled File System) to FreeBSD...
> >
> > Not unless you have plans. When I was an IBM employee, they would
> > not change the license, and so it's impossible to ship a CDROM
> > where it's the boot FS, or boxes on which it is the boot FS, and
> > still have it be legal, because of the license conflicts.
> >
> > I fought this for about a year within IBM, before I gave up.
>
> Since then, it has become possible for the loader to load modules
> before booting the kernel. This means that, theoretically, it would
> be possible to have a JFS root file system. Given the strong
> opposition to the GPL in some factions of the FreeBSD project, I don't
> see this happening any time soon, especially since we still don't know
> if it will buy us anything.
>
> >> It is used on IBM MainFrames and Enterprise servers
> >> for high performance and maximum throughput...
> >
> > No, it's not. The Linux JFS is derived from the OS/2 JFS code, not
> > the good AIX JFS code.
>
> That's correct, but note that AIX is moving to this code base too, so
> it's not as if it's second-rate. From what I've seen of the
> structures, JFS2 is *much* better than JFS1. I haven't compared
> performance.
I happened to be with IBM working on AIX (I was the AIX architecture
manager at the time) during the development of the original JFS (for
AIX 3.1 on the first RS/6000s). Its design and implementation were
largely the result of the efforts of a single person (Al Chang) from
IBM research, who was also the primary designer/developer for the
VM system for AIX 3.1. Consequently, the JFS code was designed to
take advantage of the specific VM implementation (and the underlying
RS/6000 VM hardware). This resulted in a rather unportable code base.
Additionally, since it was derived from AT&T (and BSD) filesystem
code, there were some licensing issues. As I recall, these two issues
(portability and license) were what lead to the reimplementation for
OS/2 (I wasn't involved or even very familiar with that effort though).
Bob
--
Bob Willcox Boucher's Observation:
b...@vieo.com He who blows his own horn always plays the music
Austin, TX several octaves higher than originally written.