Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
Well, it exists and it comes with the kernel.org sources since a long time now. However, it's far from usable. Read Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt from a recent kernel for details. Hm, i am not sure here, but i always thought that this is the module from the Arla sources? regards --lars Let me say that again: No no no no. I wonder how much that how difficult can it be-project in the kernel has harmed AFS in general. What first impression of AFS do users get? The RH-kAFS is the standing proof that stuff does not need to be working to get distributed with the kernel. Let me try to make a table: NameLicenseShipped from Concept Status on Linux OpenAFS IPLopenafs.orgkernel module works ArlaBSD(3)+GPL stacken.kth.se module + userland program works RH kAFS GPLwith kernelin kernel proof of concept NFSv4 BSD(3)?with kernelin kernel ? So there have been two working AFS client implementations with a choice of licenses a while now and none of them has made it into the kernel. In contrary, more and more time has to be spent by OpenAFS and Arla folks just to keep up with the new ways the Linux kernel API is changed every time between minor releases. It makes me wonder if a project has to be part of the kernel to have the right to work together with it? Is there a you shall not have any other kernel modules besides the kernel distrubution rule? As we have seen in the previous discussion, there are people who get upset and shout you are not allowed to do this when OpenAFS IPL code wants to call GPL:ed kernel symbols. Sometimes even when GPL:ed Arla code wants to continue to use GPL:ed kernel symbols. These folks I ask to look at the following code fetched from the kernel: | # | # Makefile for the Linux nfs filesystem routines. | # | | obj-$(CONFIG_NFS_FS) += nfs.o | | nfs-y := dir.o file.o inode.o nfs2xdr.o pagelist.o \ |proc.o read.o symlink.o unlink.o write.o | nfs-$(CONFIG_ROOT_NFS) += nfsroot.o mount_clnt.o | nfs-$(CONFIG_NFS_V3)+= nfs3proc.o nfs3xdr.o | nfs-$(CONFIG_NFS_V4)+= nfs4proc.o nfs4xdr.o nfs4state.o nfs4renewd.o \ |delegation.o idmap.o \ |callback.o callback_xdr.o callback_proc.o | nfs-$(CONFIG_NFS_DIRECTIO) += direct.o | nfs-objs:= $(nfs-y) Then look at the licenses of the listed files and at the end of inode.c. $ grep MODULE_LICENSE inode.c MODULE_LICENSE(GPL); Could someone explain to me how the differnt licensed codes are combined here to result in a GPL:ed module? Harald. ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
* Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag, 24. August 2006 15:40 schrieb ext Lars Wilke: That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. Well, it exists and it comes with the kernel.org sources since a long time now. However, it's far from usable. Read Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt from a recent kernel for details. Hm, i am not sure here, but i always thought that this is the module from the Arla sources? regards --lars ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
Lars Wilke wrote: * Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Am Donnerstag, 24. August 2006 15:40 schrieb ext Lars Wilke: That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. Well, it exists and it comes with the kernel.org sources since a long time now. However, it's far from usable. Read Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt from a recent kernel for details. Hm, i am not sure here, but i always thought that this is the module from the Arla sources? regards --lars Its not. Jeffrey Altman smime.p7s Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
* Derrick J Brashear wrote: On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: * Derrick J Brashear wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK It depends what you mean by incompatible. Hm, i meant that here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Look in the incompatible section. Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.) Please note i am not a lawyer and my english is probably not good enough to discuss this in full detail. I would bet that regarding of the country you live in the rules regarding the GPL are interpreted more less differently. That said i would be very happy to have the OpenAFS Module included in mainline. But the controversial point regarding the GPL AFAIU is that if you link stuff into a GPLed program (the kernel) it becomes infected by the GPL, too. http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLModuleLicense Though i remember reading about an exception to this rule, hmpf can't find it atm. Well, ok, but when I am done I have a module, and I have a kernel. Did I combine them? That's the crux of the issue. Well, it depends ... :) If you link one against the other, i guess, yes you combined them. Next time I boot, I still have to do it again. So I argue... Yeah and i bet there are different opinions on that in different countries. So either build a kernel for different countries or don't include it. But as i said i am no lawyer. cheers --lars ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
* Jeffrey Altman wrote: Lars Wilke wrote: * Dirk Heinrichs wrote: Well, it exists and it comes with the kernel.org sources since a long time now. However, it's far from usable. Read Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt from a recent kernel for details. Hm, i am not sure here, but i always thought that this is the module from the Arla sources? Its not. Ah ok, the source files have a copyright from 2002 by Red Hat and are licensed under GPL. Never used this one *shrug* --lars ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
* David Werner wrote: I wonder why they did not support OpenAFS as product is much longer available in pretty good working state on the market. Well, at least in Debian and ScientificLinux OpenAFS is available. For others i don't know. Maybe licensing issues or dislikeness of stable binary interfaces of the the kernel-developers? What does the folklore say? The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. I guess man power ... To the conservative admin it is clear that something which supports the distributor is in favour to something where one has to put up own work to get it running. So I now have to argue against my colleagues which say with every patched version of kernel one has to build up afs again, which seems to be true. As one poster stated already, you might have to rebuild the kernel module. But that can easily be captured in a rpm/deb script. At least with rpm you could use a trigger script for that. On the other side using bleeding edge NFSv4 code might not be the most exciting thing for a conservative sysadmin btw ... cheers --lars ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK It depends what you mean by incompatible. Derrick ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
Lars Wilke [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. I guess man power ... AFS is not a simple protocol. Reimplementing the protocol for no other reason than license purity isn't a particularly attractive project, and isn't likely to draw many volunteers with the required skills, particularly since Linus has stated repeatedly that he doesn't have license issues with the OpenAFS kernel module as is. He considers the external module API to be a license boundary. (Some other kernel developers don't agree, but to date that disagreement hasn't carried the day.) That being said, those who really don't like the OpenAFS license can use (and contribute resources to) Arla, which is a separate implementation of OpenAFS started for other reasons. I believe the client isn't quite as mature as OpenAFS's client, but it does work. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/ ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
* Derrick J Brashear wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK It depends what you mean by incompatible. Hm, i meant that here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Look in the incompatible section. At least the GNU folks think the IBM Public License v1.0 is not compatible with the GPL. regards --lars ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
On Fri, 25 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: * Derrick J Brashear wrote: On Thu, 24 Aug 2006, Lars Wilke wrote: The IBM Public License is incompatible with GPLv2 AFAIK It depends what you mean by incompatible. Hm, i meant that here http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html Look in the incompatible section. Whether it is compatible with the GNU GPL. (This means you can combine a module which was released under that license with a GPL-covered module to make one larger program.) Well, ok, but when I am done I have a module, and I have a kernel. Did I combine them? That's the crux of the issue. Next time I boot, I still have to do it again. So I argue... Derrick ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
Am Donnerstag, 24. August 2006 15:40 schrieb ext Lars Wilke: Well, at least in Debian and ScientificLinux OpenAFS is available. For others i don't know. Gentoo has ebuilds as well. That seems to be whole reason. Once i have read that there was a plan to create a kernel module which could have a compatible license, so the kernel module could be included in the mainline kernel, but never heard of that idea again. Well, it exists and it comes with the kernel.org sources since a long time now. However, it's far from usable. Read Documentation/filesystems/afs.txt from a recent kernel for details. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hambornerstraße 55 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40472 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net pgp1Eh0VWYoQj.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
Am Dienstag, 15. August 2006 16:21 schrieb ext David Werner: own work to get it running. So I now have to argue against my colleagues which say with every patched version of kernel one has to build up afs again, which seems to be true. It's not. The only thing you (may) have to rebuild is the kernel module. Bye... Dirk -- Dirk Heinrichs | Tel: +49 (0)162 234 3408 Configuration Manager | Fax: +49 (0)211 47068 111 Capgemini Deutschland | Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Hambornerstraße 55 | Web: http://www.capgemini.com D-40472 Düsseldorf | ICQ#: 110037733 GPG Public Key C2E467BB | Keyserver: www.keyserver.net pgp7ezEYeWDOS.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)
David, Agreed. On 8/15/06, David Werner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Dear List, Now it seems that NFSv4 seems to be included in the standard linux-kernel and the larger distributors turn it on or even apply their own patches to keep it current. I cant say much about the quality of their current state, except that to me it seems quite new. I wonder why they did not support OpenAFS as product is much longer available in pretty good working state on the market. Maybe licensing issues or dislikeness of stable binary interfaces of the the kernel-developers? What does the folklore say? (Any links, or likely i should more of the developer list) To the conservative admin it is clear that something which supports the distributor is in favour to something where one has to put up own work to get it running. So I now have to argue against my colleagues which say with every patched version of kernel one has to build up afs again, which seems to be true. Greetings, David -- Robert Q Kim, Wireless Internet Advisor http://wireless-internet-coverage.blogspot.com http://evdo-coverage.com/wireless-computer-network-consultant.html 2611 S. Pacific Coast Highway 101 Suite 203 Cardiff by the Sea, CA 92007 206 984 0880 ___ OpenAFS-info mailing list OpenAFS-info@openafs.org https://lists.openafs.org/mailman/listinfo/openafs-info
