On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 06:27:33PM +0200, Vladimir 'φ-coder/phcoder' Serbinenko wrote: > Hello, all. It seems that recently there are different rumors and > misunderstandings about btrfs support. This mail is to make the things > clear. > 1) Technical work is done. I haven't reviewed any patches to avoid being > tainted. > 2) Every patch submitted till now uses Oracle's copyrighted work > released only under GPLv2 which is incompatible with GRUB > 3) license incompatible works aren't ok for either grub or grub-extras. Why? > There are 3 kind of works: > a) Freely redistribuable. Guaranteed. Protected. > A code for which copyright assignment was signed and which if > improperly used can be protected by FSF. > b) Freely redistribuable. Guaranteed. > A code for which copyright disclaimers were signed which makes for > copyright holder impossible to sue users. > c) Freely redistribuable. > No disclaimers were signed but the will of author to release to > public usage was sufficiently clear. > d) Not redistribuable > Distribution of such code will be a plain copyright infrigement > > For GNU GRUB code under a and b is ok. Occasionaly code of type c is > permitted on case-by-case basis (e.g. lzma). > grub-extras has a less strict copyright policy. For grub-extras code > under a, b and c is ok. In practice it holds only code under c since > code under a and b is in GRUB proper. > Code under d isn't ok for either project. Neither GNU GRUB nor > grub-extras is a place for "warez".
The btrfs grub2 patches were submitted with annotations for where the code came from. I need to verify each of the annotations fits oracle copyrighted code, and where required get permission to license under gplv2 or later. I really want to do this and appreciate the time grub2 developers have spent on btrfs. I'll get it done. -chris _______________________________________________ Grub-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/grub-devel
