JFS
Jack J. Woehr
http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/jfs/
Is this something the likes of which is likely to migrate to BSD?
--
Jack J. Woehr # Ceterum censeo
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402 # in herbas belli
http://www.well.com/~jax/rcfb # ab idem desistamus.
Todd T. Fries
> Have you filesys gurus seen
>
> http://oss.software.ibm.com/developerworks/opensource/jfs/
>
> Is this something the likes of which is likely to migrate to BSD?
If the documentation/specs/technical info is freely available, then someone
could certainly implement it. Unfortunately IBM is releasing the code
they're allowing their employees to contribute as GPL, which would be an
unwelcomed addition to the BSD repository.
So unfortunately, IBM's interpretation of 'Open Source assistance' is translated
into 'Linux assistance', just like the vast majority of the bandwagon jumpers
lately.
--
Todd Fries .. to...@fries.net
Jack J. Woehr
> If the documentation/specs/technical info is freely available, then someone
> could certainly implement it. Unfortunately IBM is releasing the code
> they're allowing their employees to contribute as GPL, which would be an
> unwelcomed addition to the BSD repository.
Hmm, what's the BSDological objection to GPL? As a heathen residing outside
the temple :-) I was taught "GPL good, commercial software bad" by Stallman
in person. What are the wrinkles here, please?
Todd T. Fries
> "Todd T. Fries" wrote:
>
> > If the documentation/specs/technical info is freely available, then someone
> > could certainly implement it. Unfortunately IBM is releasing the code
> > they're allowing their employees to contribute as GPL, which would be an
> > unwelcomed addition to the BSD repository.
>
> Hmm, what's the BSDological objection to GPL? As a heathen residing outside
> the temple :-) I was taught "GPL good, commercial software bad" by Stallman
> in person. What are the wrinkles here, please?
Define free. Proceed when you believe you have been clear with yourself.
Does 'free' to you mean:
a) you can nab the source off the net
b) you can re-distribute binaries and source without licensing headaches
b) you can make your own changes
c) you can make your own product derivitave, distributing source
d) you are not liable for damages if you make changes and contribute them back
e) you have the option of not contributing changes back
f) you can do whatever you want with the source, just give credit
g) all of the above
Checkout http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for a thorough explanation, but
suffice it to say, GPL is 'free' in the sense of a,b,c and d. BSD code is
free in the sense of 'g'. I could be totally off base, but based on what
I know the GPL sense you were told by 'the man' goes like this:
"you have a duty to your world to assign your work to the FSF copyright,
it is a moral thing"
While BSD replies:
"...but you are limiting the freedom of what you can do with the code if
you use GPL. Limited freedom is not total freedom. Total freedom is
unencumbered freedom."
While both would agree commercial is bad, free software is good, the definition
of freedom is at stake.
Jack J. Woehr
> a) you can nab the source off the net
> b) you can re-distribute binaries and source without licensing headaches
> b) you can make your own changes
> c) you can make your own product derivitave, distributing source
> d) you are not liable for damages if you make changes and contribute them back
> e) you have the option of not contributing changes back
> f) you can do whatever you want with the source, just give credit
> g) all of the above
>
> Checkout http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html for a thorough explanation, but
> suffice it to say, GPL is 'free' in the sense of a,b,c and d. BSD code is
> free in the sense of 'g'.
I see. Thanx for the concise enumeration and differentiation. That was what
I wanted.
> I could be totally off base, but based on what
> I know the GPL sense you were told by 'the man' goes like this:
> "you have a duty to your world to assign your work to the FSF copyright,
> it is a moral thing"
Oh, quite assuredly thus spake RMS.
> While both would agree commercial is bad, free software is good, the definition
> of freedom is at stake.
It appears to me that the Berkeley-style license is advantageous for an
operating system, while the GPL-style license can be advantageous for
certain applications.
In the case of IBM's GPL'e Journalling File System, I can see the GPL's
appeal. It allows IBM to release their code and keep, effectively, a bit more
control over it, preventing it from being modifed, re-issued closed by their
competitors (accompanied by an ironic tip of the hat to IBM) and used to
compete with them.
So both seem to have their place in the bazaar.
Thanx again for your help.
Theo de Raadt
I hate that word.
Last time I was in a bazaar, I ate some of the food, and I got really
bad diarrhea.
After that, I learned to eat at the places that cared about QUALITY,
rather than volume shipped, price per customer, or location next to
the artisans.
Theo de Raadt
>
> > If the documentation/specs/technical info is freely available, then someone
> > could certainly implement it. Unfortunately IBM is releasing the code
> > they're allowing their employees to contribute as GPL, which would be an
> > unwelcomed addition to the BSD repository.
>
> Hmm, what's the BSDological objection to GPL? As a heathen residing outside
> the temple :-) I was taught "GPL good, commercial software bad" by Stallman
> in person. What are the wrinkles here, please?
We don't like his restrictions.
We prefer "free, do as you like, incorporate it into a baby mulching machine
if that turns your crank".