Re: [OpenAFS] OpenAFS vs NFSv4 (linux)

2006-08-29 Thread Harald Barth

 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)

2006-08-25 Thread Lars Wilke
* 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)

2006-08-25 Thread Jeffrey Altman
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)

2006-08-25 Thread Lars Wilke
* 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)

2006-08-25 Thread Lars Wilke
* 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)

2006-08-24 Thread Lars Wilke
* 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)

2006-08-24 Thread Derrick J Brashear

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)

2006-08-24 Thread Russ Allbery
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)

2006-08-24 Thread Lars Wilke
* 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)

2006-08-24 Thread Derrick J Brashear

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)

2006-08-24 Thread Dirk Heinrichs
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)

2006-08-16 Thread Dirk Heinrichs
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)

2006-08-16 Thread Robert Kim Wireless Internet Advisor

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