> [ I'm sorry going on about these legal matters in a dev group, but I
>   think it *is* of big importance being able to use GPLd work in the
>   NetBSD kernel.  If you disagree, just say so... --Niklas ]

I took RMS out of the cc: list becuase I didn't want to sound
insulting and sending him this could be seen that way.

NetBSD developers seem to have a *very* strong belief in there own
standard Copyright.  From talking to other developers what I surmise
is this:

There will *never* be any GPL code in the kernel.

If your trying to figure out the legalities and possibility behind
including GPL code directly in the kernel, don't.  It probably will
never happen.  Even if it is surmised that it could be allowed.

However as someone pointed out (I think I did to someone but maybe not
on the list) The ADOSFFS could be done as an LKM, as then it would be
just another binary and could be distributed seperately (or possible
in the /usr/src/gnu/* drawer of the netbsd ditrib which gets archived
seperately)

I think the LKM approach is good and could be done right away.  Later
maybe someone could re-write the GPL sections of the code and have it
move into the main source distribution.

I understand the reason behind keeping the GPL on the code.  I
personally do not object to the BSD standard copyright which basically
gives anyone the right to do anything with my code except sue me.
Sure someone my take my code and distribute it in binry form only,
however tht will never take my code *out* of distribution, no one can
do that.  For a good example look at byacc, you could compile byacc
and sell it if you wanted (and maybe someone has) but you don't see
the source to byacc going away.  Byacc happens to be an excelent
example becuase of the legalities behind Bison (not sure if these have
been resolved yet but it was a big deal at one time) You write a
parser and use byacc to generate code for it, now your perfectly safe
to do anything you want with your parser.

The way I see it is this:  There are 2 parts to this file system, the
NetBSD part and the AmigaDOS part.  For the NetBSD part there are
numerous examples of file systems.  For the ADOS part we have this not
so good book "The AmigaDOS Manual" which gives enough info to
construct that part.  I am sure we can completely curcumvent the GPL
thing by just writing those parts from scratch.

Its almost ironic, the main reason I belive Frank wishes to keep the
source GPL'd is to help people like us.  Lets read his source and
rewrite it.  That way the GPL doesn't need to go and we don't get the
GPL.  *NOTE* rewriting does not mean copying, I belive that current
copyright laws require that if you use a copyrighted source as a guide
you must not have it available while using what you learned to author
similar code.  This means you don't get to load Frank's code into the
editor while you are writing stuff that Frank did (or if you print it
out you must put it away).

It all sounds so silly sometimes.

> Niklas

Chris.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------