Global File System (GFS) Relicensed under SPL

thk writes "Sistina, the main developer of the Global File System, has changed its license from GPL to SPL (Sistina Public License). SPL is basically a free-for-non-profit-use license. Interestingly, the change came just after beta testing, leaving some users a bit miffed. The GFS is an important component of some GPL clustering projects, such as Compaq's SSIC project. The Sistina press release is here."

Comments

Re:so it was forked

[einhverfr]

You beat me too it. But this deserves some commentary anyway.

Manufacturers who think that they can pull this sort of trick and get away with it even if they are not challenged in court have the wool pulled over their eyes. All the OSS community has to do is go back to the last OSS release and work from there. Don't license your stuff under OSS licenses if you want to sell it because you will be undersold. Instead use proprietary licenses from the beginning.

If you want to be an OSS company, stick to those guns too. Focus on services, not products, and make your operation work! Why is this so hard to understand?

Ghostscript comparison

[raph]

While the AFPL is a non-DFSG license designed in large part to support an OEM licensing business, it also has three important freedoms that appear to be missing from the SPL:

1. Fork rights. You are perfectly free to take AFPL code, make your own modifications, and release that code under the AFPL. This distinguishes the AFPL from most other "almost free" licenses.

2. Commercial use. AFPL code is free for commercial use. An example is ps2pdf.com, which is an advertiser supported site using AFPL Ghostscript.

3. No grantback. If you make custom modifications for in-house use, you are not obligated to grant those modifications to the original author. Further, if you release a forked version under the AFPL, you are not obligated to license that code back to the original author so they can OEM license it.

In my opinion, the only significant right lacking from the AFPL is commercial redistribution without compensation. While people obviously disagree with this, my personal opinion is that it is not anywhere nearly as important as the other free software rights, especially now that free distribution over the Internet is ubiquitous. I frankly don't see why it's so important for Red Hat to make money from selling our code without compensating us in any way for our work.

Ghostscript has a fourth freedom guarantee, which is that major AFPL releases are re-released under the GPL a year later. Thus, the extra rights granted to us as commercial Ghostscript developers is fairly small and definitely time-limited. As long as we continue to improve Ghostscript actively, the AFPL version is valuable. As soon as we stop doing our job, it falls into the hands of the community.

The lack of funding for core development is a serious pragmatic weakness of the free software movement. Peter Deutsch, with Ghostscript and the AFPL license he authored, made a very good attempt to address that problem, and it's actually been working out pretty well for us.

Even so, freedom is very important to the Ghostscript project. Thus, I feel called to respond to comparisons between less-free licensing arrangements and Ghostscript.

Re:so it was forked

[jd]

Just for the trivia of it:

I'm working on merging the last GPL version of GFS into the FOLK patch series. I've already merged the Gwsecurity kernel stuff (which raised ALL Hell and more besides), and I've asked RMS to rule whether re-use of GPL components in other GPL projects is within the rules of the licence.

Assuming Richard Stallman verifies that re-use of GPL code =is= perfectly legitamate, then GFS will be in the next version. (Grsecurity isn't moving ANYWHERE, unless the decision goes the other way.)

The problem, I believe, is that people believe they "own" the code they developed. If you opt for an Open Source or Free Software philosophy, then ownership (which is just Intellectual Property in disguise) ceases to exist.

GFS, kernel security, etc, =WILL= survive, no matter WHAT attitudes these idiots develop.