licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[ivo welch]

curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow
Apple and other vendors to adopt it?  as end users, having one good
file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be
heaven...

RE: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[Edward Ned Harvey]

> From: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ivo welch
> 
> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow
> Apple and other vendors to adopt it?  

No.  The source code is copyrighted by many different entities, and the only
way to release it under any other license would require all of the
contributors to mutually agree.  It'll never happen.  Likewise, perhaps
Apple could release their code under a license that's compatible with GPL,
but I seriously doubt that would ever happen.


> as end users, having one good
> file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be
> heaven...

Agreed.  But the various producers of filesystems are generally commercial
entities interested in making a profit.  For various reasons, many of them
intentionally don't go this direction.  They're all trying to differentiate
themselves.

Generally speaking, the problem is the requirement to integrate some other
FS into a kernel or other component that requires license compatibility for
booting.  Generally speaking you can circumvent this problem by using things
like Fuse to mount a filesystem in user space, thus not requiring it to be
built into the kernel, thus eliminating any license compatibility problems.

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[ivo welch]

thx, ed.

this is a case where I am wondering whether EVERYONE, including all
the commercial contributors to btrfs, would be better off with another
additional license that also allowed kernel integration for companies
like Apple.   the decision-making (and rights) for btrfs are so
dispersed, however, that we may all end up with a worse outcome,
including the commercial and other contributors.  (perhaps, it would
be worth asking them, if a mailing list of contributors to btrfs
existed.)

I am and I am not a fan of Apple.  they scare me.  I am afraid that
Apple will be much worse than IBM and Microsoft ever were.  I would
rather not see them get more than 20% market share.  still, the world
is what it is.

now, specifically, which contributors to btrfs would it hurt if Apple
were allowed to integrate the code into its kernel to make btrfs its
main file system?

I can only think of Microsoft as a company that might be hurt.  FAT is
the universal file system now, and it could lose that status.
Microsoft may not have wanted to contribute to btrfs in this case to
begin with.  did they ever contribute here?

I cannot imagine that any server company, like Sun, Oracle, or IBM,
would be worse off if OSX and linux would both use btrfs.  it would
probably make their life a whole lot easier.

linux on the desktop would be MUCH better off compared to the current
situation with everyone using their own almost-compatible file system,
and more so than OSX on the desktop would be better off.  (linux on
the server would probably be mildly better off, but here one can argue
that Apple would get more than it contributes.)  besides, the btrfs
system would control the evolution of btrfs, not Apple.

just my two cents...

/iaw


On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 7:00 PM, Edward Ned Harvey <kernel@nedharvey.co=
m> wrote:
>> From: linux-btrfs-owner@vger.kernel.org [mailto:linux-btrfs-
>> owner@vger.kernel.org] On Behalf Of ivo welch
>>
>> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to all=
ow
>> Apple and other vendors to adopt it?
>
> No. =A0The source code is copyrighted by many different entities, and=
 the only
> way to release it under any other license would require all of the
> contributors to mutually agree. =A0It'll never happen. =A0Likewise, p=
erhaps
> Apple could release their code under a license that's compatible with=
 GPL,
> but I seriously doubt that would ever happen.
>
>
>> as end users, having one good
>> file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be
>> heaven...
>
> Agreed. =A0But the various producers of filesystems are generally com=
mercial
> entities interested in making a profit. =A0For various reasons, many =
of them
> intentionally don't go this direction. =A0They're all trying to diffe=
rentiate
> themselves.
>
> Generally speaking, the problem is the requirement to integrate some =
other
> FS into a kernel or other component that requires license compatibili=
ty for
> booting. =A0Generally speaking you can circumvent this problem by usi=
ng things
> like Fuse to mount a filesystem in user space, thus not requiring it =
to be
> built into the kernel, thus eliminating any license compatibility pro=
blems.
>
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[Billy Crook]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 19:34, ivo welch <ivowel@gmail.com> wrote:
> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow
> Apple and other vendors to adopt it?

Great question, Ivo.

And it turns out, btrfs is already licensed to permit commercial use,
integration into other products, and resale.

The license of btrfs isn't stopping Apple or Microsoft from using
btrfs.  All licenses have terms (You should read the terms on some of
Apple and Microsoft's software), but so long as they don't violate any
terms, they are welcome to use all parts of the btrfs code for their
corporation's profit, and their customer's benefit.

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[C Anthony Risinger]

On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 9:53 PM, Billy Crook <billycrook@gmail.com> wro=
te:
> On Sun, Aug 14, 2011 at 19:34, ivo welch <ivowel@gmail.com> wrote:
>> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to all=
ow
>> Apple and other vendors to adopt it?
>
> Great question, Ivo.
>
> And it turns out, btrfs is already licensed to permit commercial use,
> integration into other products, and resale.
>
> The license of btrfs isn't stopping Apple or Microsoft from using
> btrfs. =C2=A0All licenses have terms (You should read the terms on so=
me of
> Apple and Microsoft's software), but so long as they don't violate an=
y
> terms, they are welcome to use all parts of the btrfs code for their
> corporation's profit, and their customer's benefit.

=2E.. and while some will certainly argue one way or another, this is a
case where (IMO) the code for btrfs (as a module) is clearly distinct
from the OSX kernel (as it was not even designed for it originally)
and would not constitute far reaching public release of Apple IP ...
though tbh i know nothing about OSX kernel and whether it support
things like dynamic modules, so i could be mistaken ...

=2E.. but im confident there is a way Apple could wire it up so IP
release could be very small or nonexistent.  or maintain a "port" if
they so wished.

the real question is whether or not they would even desire using it
with infrastructure around HFS+/etc ... in my observations Apple and
friends are incredibly ... ehm ... selective -- the hardware and
everything above it *must* have the `Seal of Approval` -- maybe to
reduce/isolate their problem pool or maintain it's clique-crazed
"chic" aura :-), i dont know, but it's not for the end-user's
flexibility -- that's for sure.  the glaring example to me is
virtually the entire mobile/handheld/device industry deciding on
micro-USB as the power+data xchange connection *except* one infamous
product line ...

but meh, who really knows anyway; it certainly would be incredibly
cool to have a common denominator greater than FAT, especially since
commodity flash chips are 8-16GB now.

--=20

C Anthony
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[Roman Mamedov]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 721 bytes --]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2011 00:54:18 -0500
C Anthony Risinger <anthony@xtfx.me> wrote:

> but meh, who really knows anyway; it certainly would be incredibly
> cool to have a common denominator greater than FAT, especially since
> commodity flash chips are 8-16GB now.

Consider using UDF: http://homepage.mac.com/wenguangwang/myhome/udf.html#why-udf
Yes, it's not just for optical disks, it also works on flash media and even HDDs.

As for Apple, who gives a flying fsck about them and their proprietarist problems. They are more than free to implement a btrfs module for themselves from scratch with any license they desire, after all it's not like btrfs format is secretive or patented.

-- 
With respect,
Roman

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 198 bytes --]

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[Chris Mason]

Excerpts from ivo welch's message of 2011-08-14 20:34:14 -0400:
> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to allow
> Apple and other vendors to adopt it?  as end users, having one good
> file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be
> heaven...

One of the ways you can tell people like the project is when they wish
they could use it everywhere.  Thanks for this question ;)

There are a few problems with relicensing btrfs under something other
than the GPL.

Large parts of the btrfs code that deal with the VFS were copied from
ext2 and ext3.  These are GPL and would have to be reimplemented.  The
code that deals with the page cache was also lifted and adapted from
different parts of the kernel, and it is surprising how far the roots of
the page cache spread into the rest of the code.

More importantly, btrfs has major contributions from many companies and
individuals.  I intentionally set things up so there wouldn't be a
single place you could go and say 'xyz' owns the btrfs code, we'll
ask them for permission.

Just like most of the kernel, we have maintainers and contributors,
but not a single owner.  This is a big part of why others feel
comfortable contributing to btrfs, and to be honest it's one of my
favorite parts of the project.

None of this prevents others from using btrfs outside of linux, but if
they do it'll be under the GPL.

-chris

Re: licenses (for apple OSX and others)?

[Billy Crook]

Maybe Apple and Microsoft can write a GPL FUSE-like wrapper for btrfs.

On Mon, Aug 15, 2011 at 10:15, Chris Mason <chris.mason@oracle.com> wro=
te:
> Excerpts from ivo welch's message of 2011-08-14 20:34:14 -0400:
>> curiosity question---could btrfs be licensed in multiple ways to all=
ow
>> Apple and other vendors to adopt it? =A0as end users, having one goo=
d
>> file system that works everywhere as a main root system would be
>> heaven...
>
> One of the ways you can tell people like the project is when they wis=
h
> they could use it everywhere. =A0Thanks for this question ;)
>
> There are a few problems with relicensing btrfs under something other
> than the GPL.
>
> Large parts of the btrfs code that deal with the VFS were copied from
> ext2 and ext3. =A0These are GPL and would have to be reimplemented. =A0=
The
> code that deals with the page cache was also lifted and adapted from
> different parts of the kernel, and it is surprising how far the roots=
 of
> the page cache spread into the rest of the code.
>
> More importantly, btrfs has major contributions from many companies a=
nd
> individuals. =A0I intentionally set things up so there wouldn't be a
> single place you could go and say 'xyz' owns the btrfs code, we'll
> ask them for permission.
>
> Just like most of the kernel, we have maintainers and contributors,
> but not a single owner. =A0This is a big part of why others feel
> comfortable contributing to btrfs, and to be honest it's one of my
> favorite parts of the project.
>
> None of this prevents others from using btrfs outside of linux, but i=
f
> they do it'll be under the GPL.
>
> -chris
> --
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs=
" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at =A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
>
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" =
in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html