Re: grub-0.97: btrfs multidevice support [PATCH]

[Robert Millan]

On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 09:47:50AM +0200, Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko wrote:
> Peng Tao wrote:
> > On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Robert Millan <address@hidden> wrote:
> >   
> >> On Sun, Sep 27, 2009 at 11:29:11AM +0800, Peng Tao wrote:
> >>     
> >>>> It would be great if somebody could take up Edward's work and port it to
> >>>> GRUB 2. If nobody else does then I'd be interested in doing so myself,
> >>>> although I will not be able to start for a month or two from now.
> >>>>         
> >>> Is there any guild lines for porting GPLv2 code to GRUB2? I've looked
> >>> at the GRUB2 wiki but very few things are documented there
> >>> (http://grub.enbug.org/). I'd like to see what it would take to port
> >>> the patches. If I can afford it, I'd like to try.
> >>>       
> >> I assume you mean GPLv2-only code (as opposed to GPLv2-or-later). First
> >> step would be to contact the copyright holders and ask them to relicense
> >> under v3-compatible terms (e.g. GPLv2-or-later).  Chances are they didn't
> >> chose these terms as an act of hostility, but were simply being zealous
> >> about allowing something before they knew what it is.
> >>
> >> If that doesn't work, we'll always have Par^W clean room
> >> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_room_design).
> >>     
> > Edward's patch (stage2/fsys_btrfs.c) is declared GPLv2-or-later. But
> > stage2/btrfs.h (which is extracted from btrfs-progs) is GPLv2-only. At
> > the point, we only need a clean room for btrfs.h, right?
> >   
> Doing any clean room is needed only if other ways fail. And I hope
> Oracle and btrfs contributors could agree to license under
> GPLv3-compatible terms

Yes, this should only be our last-ressort option.

-- 
Robert Millan

  The DRM opt-in fallacy: "Your data belongs to us. We will decide when (and
  how) you may access your data; but nobody's threatening your freedom: we
  still allow you to remove your data and not access it at all."