On Wed, 2004-02-18 at 01:19, Andrew Morton wrote:
> "Paul E. McKenney" <paulmck@us.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > IBM shipped the promised SAN Filesystem some months ago.
> 
> Neat, but it's hard to see the relevance of this to your patch.
> 
> I don't see any licensing issues with the patch because the filesystem
> which needs it clearly meets Linus's "this is not a derived work" criteria.

it does?
It needed no changes to work on linux?
it only uses "core unix" apis ?
it needs no changes to the core kernel? *buzz*
It doesn't require knowledge of deep and changing internals ? *buzz*
It doesn't need changing for various kernel versions ?

I remember this baby overriding syscalls and the like not too long
ago...

The word "clearly" isn't correct imo. Just because something has a few
lines of code that started on another OS doesn't make it "clearly" not a
derived work, at least not in my eyes.