[Info-vax] VAFS, GFS2 and the GPL, was: Re: VSI OpenVMS Roadmap: V9.2 is x86-64 only

[Bill Gunshannon]

On 10/8/20 3:02 PM, Chris Townley wrote:
> On Thursday, 8 October 2020 18:42:54 UTC+1, Simon Clubley  wrote:
>> On 2020-10-08, Jan-Erik Söderholm wrote:
>>> Den 2020-10-08 kl. 14:20, skrev Simon Clubley:
>>>>
>>>> Just to let people know: so far, I have not had any reply from VSI.
>>>>
>>>> I asked again yesterday in case the original query had been forgotten
>>>> about, but I have not heard anything back from that either.
>>>>
>>>> I, for one, would like to know how VSI have achieved this. It could
>>>> make for quite an interesting discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I do not understand why you expect that VSI would reply to you about this.
>>
>> Because based on their own roadmap, what VSI are doing is very unusual.
>>
>> VSI are talking about integrating code that appears to be pure GPL V2
>> (without any apparent linking or other exceptions) directly into the
>> core of VMS (which is not licenced using a GPL V2 compatible licence).
>>
>> This is so unusual that I consider it reasonable to ask VSI how they
>> have managed to do this and for them to explain how they have managed
>> to integrate what is apparently pure GPL V2 code directly into VMS
>> while still keeping to the requirements of the GPL licence.
>>
>> Note that my working assumption is that VSI _have_ found some way to
>> do this that they believe still complies with the GPL.
>>
>> However, given how unusual this is, I still believe that VSI should
>> explain how they have done this so that people can make sure there
>> isn't an aspect to this that VSI might have missed.
>>
>> Is anyone else here interested in knowing how VSI have managed to
>> integrate the GFS2 code into VMS ?
>>
>> Simon.
> 
> Is it not possible they have negotiated to buy a license to use the code that is suitable for their purpose from the owners?
> 

It would be good if people were told this.  Would you want to
to be betting your business on a company that was setting
themselves up for a potentially expensive legal battle?

bill