Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Thu, 2002-05-30 at 18:35, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > There is a smbfs implementation in BSD, but I believe it does not have any > > connection to the GPL'ed Linux version, other than for some comments where > > they have obviously compared what the code does (but that is allowed). > > > > I think it was made for one BSD variant first and that it has been copied > > to the others. Maybe that is why it is in 'ports'. > > Its in the base src for 5.0, but what you said above makes sense. In > any case we have a lot of gnu stuff in the base src so I don't think > it will be a problem as I don't think we're breaking anything in the > GPL license when we distribute. Do not confuse programs and modules. A GPL program can run on any system A GPL program cannot be linked to any other program but only to any GPL-compatible program and the whole work have to be distributed under the GPL terms when doing so. In the case of the module, it is part of the freebsd kernel, not a program that uses the freebsd kernel. So any distributor that distribute a product based on freebsd AND a GPL module must distribute the whole program under the GPL terms (of course that means no GPL-incompatible modules can be linked in that kernel). Simo. -- Simo Sorce -- Una scelta di liberta': Software Libero. A choice of freedom: Free Software. http://www.softwarelibero.it
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Thu, 30 May 2002, Urban Widmark wrote: > On Thu, 30 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > That makes sense. Currently we ship with something under GPL in our kernel > > so I think this has already been taken care of. We do not charge for our > > sources and they are all readily available. smbfs is distributed with > > FreeBSD and I believe that is under GPL. I think this module would be in > > the ports system though and not distributed with freebsd in a release. > > There is a smbfs implementation in BSD, but I believe it does not have any > connection to the GPL'ed Linux version, other than for some comments where > they have obviously compared what the code does (but that is allowed). > > I think it was made for one BSD variant first and that it has been copied > to the others. Maybe that is why it is in 'ports'. Yes, I have been modifying it a bit, but will probably switch to Steve French's package when it becomes available. Regards - Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
> There is a smbfs implementation in BSD, but I believe it does not have any > connection to the GPL'ed Linux version, other than for some comments where > they have obviously compared what the code does (but that is allowed). > > I think it was made for one BSD variant first and that it has been copied > to the others. Maybe that is why it is in 'ports'. Its in the base src for 5.0, but what you said above makes sense. In any case we have a lot of gnu stuff in the base src so I don't think it will be a problem as I don't think we're breaking anything in the GPL license when we distribute. -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Thu, 30 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > That makes sense. Currently we ship with something under GPL in our kernel > so I think this has already been taken care of. We do not charge for our > sources and they are all readily available. smbfs is distributed with > FreeBSD and I believe that is under GPL. I think this module would be in > the ports system though and not distributed with freebsd in a release. There is a smbfs implementation in BSD, but I believe it does not have any connection to the GPL'ed Linux version, other than for some comments where they have obviously compared what the code does (but that is allowed). I think it was made for one BSD variant first and that it has been copied to the others. Maybe that is why it is in 'ports'. /Urban
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
> On Thu, 30 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > > > The FreeBSD kernel wouldn't be distributed with this module. It would be in > > the ports system and compiled/added at a later time. > > Yes, but someone who was distributing the package with their kernel and > propietary product would have to release any kernel sources they had :-) > That makes sense. Currently we ship with something under GPL in our kernel so I think this has already been taken care of. We do not charge for our sources and they are all readily available. smbfs is distributed with FreeBSD and I believe that is under GPL. I think this module would be in the ports system though and not distributed with freebsd in a release.
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Thu, 30 May 2002, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > The FreeBSD kernel wouldn't be distributed with this module. It would be in > the ports system and compiled/added at a later time. Yes, but someone who was distributing the package with their kernel and propietary product would have to release any kernel sources they had :-) Regards - Richard Sharpe, [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
The FreeBSD kernel wouldn't be distributed with this module. It would be in the ports system and compiled/added at a later time. - Original Message - From: "Simo Sorce" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "David W. Chapman Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 3:10 AM Subject: Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Wed, 2002-05-29 at 22:33, David W. Chapman Jr. wrote: > I talked to a few FreeBSD developers and I don't think this will be too much > of a problem. They pointed me towards the GPL math emulator that can > be compiled into the kernel and compiles with FreeBSD. When you are > finished I will have them review this again to make sure having GPL > in the kernel isn't a problem. If we can make this a kernel loadable > module on FreeBSD, I don't see any problem at all though. Sorry to stress on this point, but it is a problem! You must be sure to make people understand that when that module is distributed with the kernel, the whole kernel must be released under the GPL terms, so it is NOT possible for example to distribute both the GPLed module AND a non-GPL compatible module together. As the FreeBSD license allow any kind of code to be linked with (statically or dynamically) you have to pay attention. Simo. -- Simo Sorce - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Xsec s.r.l. via Durando 10 Ed. G - 20158 - Milano tel. +39 02 2399 7130 - fax: +39 02 700 442 399 signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
On Wed, May 29, 2002 at 03:05:31PM -0500, Steven French wrote: > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison) > > >On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:06:52AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote: > >> > >> Has it been checked on FreeBSD? If not, if you give me the source, I > will > > check it for you. > > >It is GPL code. I don't think it can be used in the FreeBSD kernel > >(correct me if I'm wrong Steve). > > > >Jeremy. > > I am not quite complete on the DFS support in the CIFS VFS but expect to > finish that soon. I am debugging two more important problems at the > moment a) not killing a captive thread on unmount, and b) (which is turning > out to be harder) a problem displaying info on symbolic links created the > Microsoft way ie with Microsoft "reparse points" > > There are still some big holes in it - not all of the code is endian > neutral and it does not do locking yet although it does do some neat things > like hardlinks to Windows servers. > > On the second question - the license, I am glad that David et al brought > this up. I had wanted to allow the code (at worts the main smb PDU > definitions and flags in the main headers) to be able to be reused in user > space utilities and on other platforms but on Linux most kernel code is > licensed as GPL (devfs is an exception and is LGPL). Currently the code > that I wrote myself (the majority) is licensed LGPL. But there are some > header files (for error mapping) from Samba which are GPL and three or > four encryption routines that came from Samba that cause a few C files to > be GPL. I talked to a few FreeBSD developers and I don't think this will be too much of a problem. They pointed me towards the GPL math emulator that can be compiled into the kernel and compiles with FreeBSD. When you are finished I will have them review this again to make sure having GPL in the kernel isn't a problem. If we can make this a kernel loadable module on FreeBSD, I don't see any problem at all though. -- David W. Chapman Jr. [EMAIL PROTECTED] Raintree Network Services, Inc. [EMAIL PROTECTED] FreeBSD Committer
Microsoft DFS and the CIFS VFS
>From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jeremy Allison) >On Thu, May 30, 2002 at 06:06:52AM +0930, Richard Sharpe wrote: >> >> Has it been checked on FreeBSD? If not, if you give me the source, I will > check it for you. >It is GPL code. I don't think it can be used in the FreeBSD kernel >(correct me if I'm wrong Steve). > >Jeremy. I am not quite complete on the DFS support in the CIFS VFS but expect to finish that soon. I am debugging two more important problems at the moment a) not killing a captive thread on unmount, and b) (which is turning out to be harder) a problem displaying info on symbolic links created the Microsoft way ie with Microsoft "reparse points" There are still some big holes in it - not all of the code is endian neutral and it does not do locking yet although it does do some neat things like hardlinks to Windows servers. On the second question - the license, I am glad that David et al brought this up. I had wanted to allow the code (at worts the main smb PDU definitions and flags in the main headers) to be able to be reused in user space utilities and on other platforms but on Linux most kernel code is licensed as GPL (devfs is an exception and is LGPL). Currently the code that I wrote myself (the majority) is licensed LGPL. But there are some header files (for error mapping) from Samba which are GPL and three or four encryption routines that came from Samba that cause a few C files to be GPL. Steve French Senior Software Engineer Linux Technology Center - IBM Austin phone: 512-838-2294 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
