[OpenAFS-devel] Re: [OpenAFS] 2.6 kernel support anytime soon? Workarounds?

[Chaskiel M Grundman]

--On Monday, May 10, 2004 12:11:07 -0700 Pete Zaitcev <zaitcev@redhat.com>
wrote:

> On Mon, 10 May 2004 14:42:49 -0400
> Jeffrey Hutzelman <jhutz@cmu.edu> wrote:
> 
>> Ah, but that's exactly what the Linux folks seem to think.  The broken 
>> "tainting" model the Linux folks have adopted makes no provision for 
>> non-GPL open-source licenses.  They assume that either your license is
>> the  GPL, or you suck.
> 
> This characterization is incorrect. There's no problem loading
> 2-clause BSD licensed code, for instance.
> 

In as much as that is true, it is only true because bsd is a strict subset
of gpl. But it isn't true. In order to actually be considered a "good"
module, it must be tagged as dual bsd/gpl (which _can_ be done mechanically
without the consent of the original author, but that's not the same thing):


Only the following strings are allowed (modutils 2.4.27 and linux 2.6.6
have the same list)
        "GPL",
        "GPL v2",
        "GPL and additional rights",
        "Dual BSD/GPL",
        "Dual MPL/GPL",


>> [...] The Linux 
>> maintainers, on the other hand, tell us we can't have our syscall any
>> more,  demand that we completly rearchitect the user-kernel interface
>> that has  worked well for us on many platforms over a couple of decades,
>> and then  WON'T EVEN GIVE US THE TOOLS TO DO SO.  That's just idiotic.
> 
> It is only your rant that is idiotic, because it's based on ignorance
> and delusions.
which of his statements is based on ignorance?
a) we can't have our syscall anymore
b) it's been demanded that we completely re-architect the user-kernel
interface
c) our existing user-kernel interface has worked well for us on many
platforms over a couple of decades (exaggerated, but not by much)
d) we have not been given the tools to implement what we need out of a new
user-kernel interface (hint: this includes pags or equivalent-to-userland
functionality)