Other than the ClearCase -->SVN conversion (which would be wonderful as it would give hints for porting efforts), I have a daring suggestion: please relicense it under a LGPL2 license.
The reason is that some algorithms might be valuable in a library, plus using the LGPL might even make it interesting for non-linux platforms. Since LGPL code can be changed to GPL easily, changing the license wouldn't have any adverse effect for the stuff that only belongs in the kernel.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
This probably sounds outlandish in the Linux world, but how about a BSD friendly license :) ? GPL is not. BSD licensed code can be used in the Linux kernel but not vice versa (or at least it is unclear if it can be).
-vivek
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
The BSD license *is* better in many ways, and I doubt HP is worried about the competition. The reason why I asked for LGPL is that:
1) The change is less drastic so HP is more likely to change to the LGPL than to the BSDL.
2) It is unlikely that anyone in the BSD world will use advfs for anything else than a remote reference: Dragonfly's new hammer fs is very promising and already under a BSD license and, of course, there's ZFS already working in FreeBSD.
Pedro.
If you would like to refer to this comment somewhere else in this project, copy and paste the following link:
Hi again;
Other than the ClearCase -->SVN conversion (which would be wonderful as it would give hints for porting efforts), I have a daring suggestion: please relicense it under a LGPL2 license.
The reason is that some algorithms might be valuable in a library, plus using the LGPL might even make it interesting for non-linux platforms. Since LGPL code can be changed to GPL easily, changing the license wouldn't have any adverse effect for the stuff that only belongs in the kernel.
Hmm...LGPL2 is an interesting idea. I need to talk to some other folks about that.
-- ljk
This probably sounds outlandish in the Linux world, but how about a BSD friendly license :) ? GPL is not. BSD licensed code can be used in the Linux kernel but not vice versa (or at least it is unclear if it can be).
-vivek
Well..
The BSD license *is* better in many ways, and I doubt HP is worried about the competition. The reason why I asked for LGPL is that:
1) The change is less drastic so HP is more likely to change to the LGPL than to the BSDL.
2) It is unlikely that anyone in the BSD world will use advfs for anything else than a remote reference: Dragonfly's new hammer fs is very promising and already under a BSD license and, of course, there's ZFS already working in FreeBSD.
Pedro.