[CentOS-devel] [EXT] Re: RFC: kmods SIG Proposal

Mon May 24 12:45:28 UTC 2021
Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>

On Sat, May 22, 2021 at 09:51:27PM +0000, redbaronbrowser via CentOS-devel wrote:
> The situation still is far from ideal.  The module should get the
> kernel marked as tainted.  It would be nice if the largest
> contributor of code to OpenAFS (some company called "IBM/Red Hat")
> could work towards relicensing under the GPLv2.  But the poor
> selection of license applied to OpenAFS shouldn't force exclusion. 

The only thing that IBM could re-license would be the code they
published in 2000, which was forked to make OpenAFS 1.0.  From what I've
been told, less than 30% of the source code in the OpenAFS kernel
module is attributable to IBM contributions.

The in-kernel kAFS module is entirely covered by the kernel license,
and was developed outside of the OpenAFS/IBM AFS development, so there
should be no licensing limits for it that aren't also on any other
in-kernel modules that are being built outside of the RHEL/CentOS

Jonathan Billings <billings at negate.org>