This is a discussion on Re: [RFC] Remove NTFS kernel support - FreeBSD ; On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:11:28PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote: > Csaba Henk writes: > > So I think: fuse4bsd (ie, the kld + the mount util) + libfolly + sysctl > > fs could go to base under ...
On Tue, Feb 12, 2008 at 09:11:28PM +0100, Dag-Erling Sm??rgrav wrote:
> Csaba Henk
> > So I think: fuse4bsd (ie, the kld + the mount util) + libfolly + sysctl
> > fs could go to base under BSD license. It also might make sense to rebase
> > ntfs-3g atop of folly -- although it won't help ntfs-3g being GPL'd.
> That doesn't matter; ntfs-3g can still be a port.
> What does matter is that if libfolly exports the same API as libfuse, we
> can have a complete BSD-licensed FUSE implementation in the base system,
> with minimal effort required to port FUSE-based file systems.
No, it's a different API. I don't see it would have much importance to
clone the libfuse API, because:
- If FreeBSD wants a filesystem for its own internal purposes (like a
filesytem interface to sysctls) it can use folly.
- The huge majority of FUSE based filesystems in common use are GPL
licensed anyway, and given this, I don't see the gain of having
them backed with a BSD licensed library instead of a LGPL'd one.
And they are as fine in ports as ntfs-3g is.
email@example.com mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "firstname.lastname@example.org"