svn commit: r344487 - in head/sys: conf gnu/gcov
Rodney W. Grimes
freebsd at pdx.rh.CN85.dnsmgr.net
Tue Feb 26 17:20:17 UTC 2019
> This has zero impact on the licensing disposition of the kernel as
> distributed as it is only used for test kernels. Tests compiled with
> coverage instrumentation run much slower than even debug, one would never
> ship this.
Shit happens, mistakes get made, and sadly the consequences for someone
could be pretty sad.
> You are very much in the minority being more concerned with ideological
> purity than minimizing the decline in relevance of FreeBSD, much less
> striving to increase its relevance.
I am not in the minority when it comes to GPL code anyplace
in our base system, did you not read what core said, did you
not read the suggested revised license guideline text?
This gcov code has to eventually go, sooner or later.
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2019 at 08:27 Rodney W. Grimes <
> freebsd at pdx.rh.cn85.dnsmgr.net> wrote:
> > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2019 at 06:18:42PM -0800, Rodney W. Grimes wrote:
> > > > > > The modest increase in activation energy for that task seems worth
> > it
> > > > > > for the short-term gains of reduced integration cost (this code
> > will
> > > > > > greatly improve our ZFS-on-Linux test coverage.)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Rod rightly points out that we haven't accepted SPDX tags alone as
> > > > > > license statements. The standard GPL v2.0 boiler plate should be
> > added
> > > > > > to this file along side the tag.
> > > > >
> > > > > I've copied the full copyright attribution that is in the
> > > > > corresponding files on Linux. Is there some reason why FreeBSD
> > > > > requires the files to be inflated with the full license text where
> > the
> > > > > original lacks it?
> > > >
> > > > I think for a few reasons, I doubt you copied the whole distribution
> > > > that this file came from, as I am sure that distribution included
> > > > a LICENSE file. Second if you actually read the GPL v2 documentation
> > > > and follow what it says it says you must do this, just because some
> > > > one else does not follow the rules of what the GPL v2 says does not
> > > > give us to knowingling not do it. Third this is a particular
> > dangerious
> > > > area for BSD to be mixing a GPL code with its kernel, to my knowlege
> > > > we have never had any gpl code in the kernel, no have we ever
> > > > allowed it, but thats a seperate argument, that should be made.
> > >
> > > Would the arm64 DTS/DTB files count as "GPL code in the kernel?"
> > >
> > > I, too, would like less GPL in project, both in userland in kernel.
> > > But, I can understand the desire for gcov. Note that I'm not
> > > advocating either way that FreeBSD perform an action. ;)
> > Didnt we just remove an inbase, compiling BSD licensed chunk of
> > code called DRM and move it to ports. So if that was possible
> > this should be very rapidly applied here and this issue goes away.
> > I am still shaking my head over this one. Yes, there is some
> > expediance to this. Also could it not live on a project
> > branch? Like.. um.. the ZoL project branch?
> > > Thanks,
> > > Shawn Webb
> > --
> > Rod Grimes
> > rgrimes at freebsd.org
Rod Grimes rgrimes at freebsd.org
More information about the svn-src-all