Re: Non-GPL export of invalidate_mmap_range

[David Weinehall]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:51:32PM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > I don't understand why IBM is pushing this dubious change right now,
> 
> It isn't a dubious change, on technical grounds.  It is reasonable for a
> distributed filesystem to want to be able to shoot down pte's which map
> sections of pagecache.  Just as it is reasonable for the filesystem to be
> able to shoot down the pagecache itself.
> 
> We've exported much lower-level stuff than this, because some in-kernel
> module happened to use it.

Probably not always the right choice, though...  I highly suspect we
far to much of our intestines are easily available.

[snip]

> We need to give Paul a reasoned and logically consistent answer to his
> request.  For that we need to establish some sort of framework against
> which to make a decision and then make the decision.  
> 
> One approach is a fait-accomplis from the top-level maintainer.  Here,
> we're trying to do it in a different way.
> 
> I have proposed two criteria upon which this should be judged:
> 
> a) Does the export make technical sense?  Do filesystems have
>    legitimate need for access to this symbol?
> 
> (really, a) is sufficient grounds, but for real-world reasons:)
> 
> b) Does the IBM filsystem meet the kernel's licensing requirements?
> 
> 
> It appears that the answers are a): yes and b) probably.

a.) Definitely
b.) Perhaps
 
> Please, feel free to add additional criteria.  We could also ask "do we
> want to withhold this symbols to encourage IBM to GPL the filesystem" or
> "do we simply refuse to export any symbol which is not used by any GPL
> software" (if so, why?).  Over to you.

Well, I wasn't altogether joking when I suggested IBM should GPL gpfs.
A couple of questions:

* Is gpfs a commercial product in the sense that it's something IBM
  earns revenue from?
* Does gpfs contain third party "Intellectual Property" (no, I'm not
  particularly fond of using that expression, but I digress)

If the answer is NO to both of these questions, why _not_ GPL the code?
If the answer is NO to only the second question, is the revenue from
gpfs big enough to warrant keeping it proprietary?

> But at the end of the day, if we decide to not export this symbol, we owe
> Paul a good, solid reason, yes?

Yup.  Silence isn't always golden, sometimes it's outright shitty.


Regards: David Weinehall
-- 
 /) David Weinehall <tao@xxxxxxxxxx> /) Northern lights wander      (\
//  Maintainer of the v2.0 kernel   //  Dance across the winter sky //
\)  http://www.acc.umu.se/~tao/    (/   Full colour fire           (/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/