Re: 2.6.0-test10-mm1

Martin J. Bligh
2003-11-26T16:23:52Z

> On Wed, Nov 26, 2003 at 05:29:00AM -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
>> But I do not think that making a single kernel symbol inaccessible is an
>> appropriate way of resolving a GPFS licensing dispute.
>
> well, GFPS is a derived work with or without it. It's just that I remember
> we had that agreement about merging it only with the _GPL export. In fact
> I'm pretty sure Paul told something about GPLed distributed filesystems from
> IBM in that context..

IBM has (at the very least) 2 clustered filesystems that use this. One is
GPL'ed, the other (GPFS) is not.

M.