BLKMGK

Dude, knock it off - you are SO far into the wrong here you couldn't get out with a flashlight and a map. There IS a GPL concern here - this is valid. It *is* possible to write code that runs on top of GPL'd code and not reveal source but in order to do so the code must stand alone. As delivered right now that doesn't appear to be the case at all. Newsflash - that means that the code is in violation of the GPL, Tom knows this and is working on it. The GPL isn't some pretty piece of fantasy it is a legal document, a legal license that binds, and it can and has been enforced. Ask TIVO, ask Linksys, and ask any number of LARGE companies that have freeloaded off of GPL code how ignoring this license worked out for them. Hint: BOTH of those companies release their code mods under GPL as REQUIRED by law. TIVO keeps some modules private because they aren't using GPL code but much of what they did DOES and they make it available as a result. Linksys in particular released ALL of their source for several of their devices - including a nice toolchain to assist with compiling I might add. That was after some lawyers came to chat, funny that huh? Don't get me started on SVEASOFT though - grr! How about I take a copy of MS Windows XP, make some tweaks, and then turn around and sell it - you okay with that? How about if I call it something "unique" for the AV community - all better now? How exactly is this different? Do you think Microsoft would see it your way? I didn't think so, so instead of continuing to show complete ignorance and looking more foolish how about not posting further on this when by your own admission you've not got a clue about what you're arguing about? Hell, you apparently don't OWN a copy of the code either! Being quiet on this - that would be a very GOOD idea indeed. SanMaster - as I understand it the code can "rely" on Resier etc. being there without being in violation so long as it doesn't incorporate the code from those projects or link to it. If the code is a module, a binary, that can be compiled without the existance of any GPL code then you are good to go. Staticly linking one of those as a library etc. would be a problem for instance since the GPL code has to be there to compile but look at how NVIDIA does it's video drivers for instance as an example - to be of any use certainly much of Linux must be there but those drivers don't have GPL code in them. Does that make sense? Complying is possible without rewriting the OS so long as the rules of the road are followed. Unfortunatly I'm not sure how Tom can best comply with this. He's using Resier which by itself might not be a problem but his product is pretty tight with the OS in order to calculate Parity I'll bet. He might be able to query the F/S driver to create his Parity but without being tightly coupled I'm not sure how it would effect performance. Tom knows the score and says he's working on it which is good, at least he seems to be making efforts to straighten this out which is more than can be said for some other companies. I've got at least one device in my household that the company has denied using Linux when I know for a fact it is So far they have gotten away with it sidestepping questions and trying to encode the binaries but it'll catch up to them since they sell it all over EBAY <sigh> I was the one who I believe first raised this question to Tom on the AVs forum. I'm willing to cut him some slack to come into compliance and hope that when he does it works out, maybe even allowing others to help him improve performance, it will be better than ever. For now I'm willing to wait while he works this through and even recommend it to friends but to be sure you're not the only one with concerns along these lines. I'm not a code contributor to a GPL project, nor even a Linux zealot, but I do understand the issue better than some. Rather than beating Tom up too badly though I for one can be patient <shrug> Hrm, I wonder if Tom could just base it off of BSD code instead? Perhaps release the source for this now as it stands and build better faster stronger on BSD? On the surface the concept of putting parity information on a seperate drive doesn't sound too complex but the devil is obviously in the details and Tom has worked out alot of kinks to restore data etc. on the fly which makes this pretty polished. I sincerely hope that he can gain compliance before the hounds start really going after him on this as there are some folks just nutz over this stuff. IMHO Tom is one of the good guys.... P.S. I seem to recall seeing pieces of the GPL fly by on bootup from the Resier driver BTW so at least there some notice given!

I see this off and on sometimes too but after a moment the array usually comes back. I've not ever tried logging to see if this is DMA or not - have you logged?