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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 10/8/2020 1:42 PM, Simon Clubley wrote:
> On 2020-10-08, Jan-Erik Söderholm <jan-erik.soderholm at telia.com> 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.

> 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.

"reasonable" is not a particular relevant term.

It is all about what makes sense for a company.

VSI technical people will not want to comment public on a
legal matter.

VSI legal people will not want to comment public on a legal
matter unless they have to.

Companies don't do that.

> 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.

I don't think VSI legal team will consider comp.os.vms the right
place to consult if any doubt. There are are legal companies
specializing in open source licenses.

> Is anyone else here interested in knowing how VSI have managed to
> integrate the GFS2 code into VMS ?

Probably lots.

But our curiosity probably doesn't matter much to VSI legal team.

Arne