(EDIT: post overlap, but i'll leave this as it is.)
because he uses GPL, and we aren't currently intending to, so he feels he cant use the library, regardless of what we may or may not think otherwise. if we really want to pursue that as a matter of confirmed fact, maybe we should, but i think thats too deep for this thread, just post the results
if IPF and the lib is open, in such a way that we all agree it is indeed open and now preservation circle is complete, then the issue with FUSE is simply that FUSE wont support IPF with our lib, because the author chose to use GPL. by choice maybe, or maybe because he used others code and that was GPL, and thus he's not really the total copyright holder of the product entirely, as is probably the point.
it would be shame then that fuse has to have its own implementation if it wanted to support IPF, but forgive me for not really being to bothered about that scenario since it only applies to GPL projects. this is a purely self imposed limitation of GPL products. every silver lining has as cloud.
i'd like GPL to be suitable for us, purely down to its popularity.
i AM bothered that you cant accept IPF as a preservation standard because its not open, a truly very valid point, and i'd like to be in this position.
1) you accept and embrace IPF as the standand because you beleive it.
2) you implement it in fuse.
but 2) isnt really as important.
i beleive i'm right in what i'm saying, please correct me where i'm wrong.