On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 06:18:42PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote: > > > The modest increase in activation energy for that task seems worth it > > > for the short-term gains of reduced integration cost (this code will > > > greatly improve our ZFS-on-Linux test coverage.) > > > > > > Rod rightly points out that we haven't accepted SPDX tags alone as > > > license statements. The standard GPL v2.0 boiler plate should be added > > > to this file along side the tag. > > > > I've copied the full copyright attribution that is in the > > corresponding files on Linux. Is there some reason why FreeBSD > > requires the files to be inflated with the full license text where the > > original lacks it? > > I think for a few reasons, I doubt you copied the whole distribution > that this file came from, as I am sure that distribution included > a LICENSE file. Second if you actually read the GPL v2 documentation > and follow what it says it says you must do this, just because some > one else does not follow the rules of what the GPL v2 says does not > give us to knowingling not do it. Third this is a particular dangerious > area for BSD to be mixing a GPL code with its kernel, to my knowlege > we have never had any gpl code in the kernel, no have we ever > allowed it, but thats a seperate argument, that should be made.
Would the arm64 DTS/DTB files count as "GPL code in the kernel?" I, too, would like less GPL in project, both in userland in kernel. But, I can understand the desire for gcov. Note that I'm not advocating either way that FreeBSD perform an action. ;) Thanks, -- Shawn Webb Cofounder and Security Engineer HardenedBSD Tor-ified Signal: +1 443-546-8752 Tor+XMPP+OTR: latt...@is.a.hacker.sx GPG Key ID: 0x6A84658F52456EEE GPG Key Fingerprint: 2ABA B6BD EF6A F486 BE89 3D9E 6A84 658F 5245 6EEE
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature