Hello,
I'm working on ext2 implementation for Minix3, where BSD license is
desirable (AFAIK folks from *BSD are interested too). Most things are
already implemented, while working I looked through linux and hurd
implementations, but didn't use anything from there (I just learned
some internals of ext2) and read http://nongnu.org/ext2-doc/ (thus my
implementation mostly based on ext2-doc).
Flags, constants, data structures are available in ext2-doc and
ext2_fs.h. As I understand GPL license I can't just take it from
ext2_fs.h and use in BSD licensed code, since it violates GPL (it was
confirmed on #gnu). Is it correct? From another hand code based on
ext2-doc can't be called derivative work. Is there any other header
similar to ext2_fs.h (or any documentation except
nongnu.org/ext2-doc/)?
Do you think I can ask copyright owners for permission to use
constants(data structures) from ext2_fs.h? Can somebody please send me
Remy Card's email (in sources it's incorrect)?
--
Evgeniy Ivanov
Just found, that recently FreeBSD got this:
http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/fs/ext2fs/ext2fs.h
It looks like I can easily include it to the BSD-licensed project and
no GPL violation. But I dunno how did they wrote ext2fs.h, since it
still must be based on ext2_fs.h
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Evgeniy Ivanov <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm working on ext2 implementation for Minix3, where BSD license is
> desirable (AFAIK folks from *BSD are interested too). Most things are
> already implemented, while working I looked through linux and hurd
> implementations, but didn't use anything from there (I just learned
> some internals of ext2) and read http://nongnu.org/ext2-doc/ (thus my
> implementation mostly based on ext2-doc).
> Flags, constants, data structures are available in ext2-doc and
> ext2_fs.h. As I understand GPL license I can't just take it from
> ext2_fs.h and use in BSD licensed code, since it violates GPL (it was
> confirmed on #gnu). Is it correct? From another hand code based on
> ext2-doc can't be called derivative work. Is there any other header
> similar to ext2_fs.h (or any documentation except
> nongnu.org/ext2-doc/)?
>
> Do you think I can ask copyright owners for permission to use
> constants(data structures) from ext2_fs.h? Can somebody please send me
> Remy Card's email (in sources it's incorrect)?
>
> --
> Evgeniy Ivanov
>
--
Evgeniy Ivanov
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:26:16PM +0300, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
> Just found, that recently FreeBSD got this:
> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/fs/ext2fs/ext2fs.h
> It looks like I can easily include it to the BSD-licensed project and
> no GPL violation. But I dunno how did they wrote ext2fs.h, since it
> still must be based on ext2_fs.h
Constants and code points aren't subject to copyright, so they don't
have ask any question. The places where things start to get dicy is
with inline function and CPP macros, especially when the code starts
become non-trivial. i.e., there's only one way to do "(foo & MASK) !=
0", so that's probably not subject to copyright. A complicated 20
line function, even if it's in a header file, is probably going to be
subject to copyright. What is and isn't a matter of copyright is
something you'd have to get a lawyer to answer for you.
You can of couse also request permission, but that can get tricky,
especially if the person who originally wrote it can't easily be
tracked down (I haven't talked or e-mailed with Remy in years), or if
it was done by someone while being paid by their employer, in which
case some corporate lawyers might have to be dragged in to give
permission.
Fortunately I don't think there's much in the way of complicated code
in the header files that you would have to deal with.
Best regards,
- Ted
On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 9:23 PM, <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 15, 2010 at 08:26:16PM +0300, Evgeniy Ivanov wrote:
>> Just found, that recently FreeBSD got this:
>> http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/cvsweb.cgi/src/sys/fs/ext2fs/ext2fs.h
>> It looks like I can easily include it to the BSD-licensed project and
>> no GPL violation. But I dunno how did they wrote ext2fs.h, since it
>> still must be based on ext2_fs.h
>
> Constants and code points aren't subject to copyright, so they don't
> have ask any question. ?The places where things start to get dicy is
> with inline function and CPP macros, especially when the code starts
> become non-trivial. ?i.e., there's only one way to do "(foo & MASK) !=
> 0", so that's probably not subject to copyright. ?A complicated 20
> line function, even if it's in a header file, is probably going to be
> subject to copyright. ?What is and isn't a matter of copyright is
> something you'd have to get a lawyer to answer for you.
>
> You can of couse also request permission, but that can get tricky,
> especially if the person who originally wrote it can't easily be
> tracked down (I haven't talked or e-mailed with Remy in years), or if
> it was done by someone while being paid by their employer, in which
> case some corporate lawyers might have to be dragged in to give
> permission.
>
> Fortunately I don't think there's much in the way of complicated code
> in the header files that you would have to deal with.
>
Thanks a lot for your answer.
--
Evgeniy Ivanov