Slashdot Mirror
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."
if you use their product in a product that makes money, you have to pay them a tax.
this discriminates against business.
but that's okay. I have a similar clause in my software that says
all brown-skinned people, and all jews, must pay a license fee.
I think that "levels the playing field."
Seriously, people will just take the GPL version and build off that, and leave the other version to rot.
With many companies unable to come up with a decent business model that allows them to be profitable while licensing their software under gpl, its not surprising that Sistina is taking an 'easier way out'. This allows us to still play with clustering projects if we feel like it, but if we ever want to sell out services based upon they get a cut of the action.
If we're profiting from their work I see this as only fair.
Of course I'd prefer if they'd just develop a better business model rather than a different license, but I still understand their position
Ice Cream has no bones.
It doesn't sound too good to me. If you try to see it from the point of view of third-parties who contributed code to this project in anticipation of being able to use the finished product, then it starts to look like Sistina is telling these people that they have acquired precisely nothing for their contribution.
In other words, Sistina has (actually, I should say may have, because I have no idea how much of the code base was developed by the community) leveraged the benefit of the community's contribution fully, then reneged on the long-term benefit to the community side of the equation.
Heck, even quality testing and bug reporting has great value, and many of these users were probably working under the impression that they would be entitled to make use of the end result as they see fit.
If companies keep doing this kind of end-run around the GPL, extracting maximum value for themselves and then refusing to let the community extract all the benefit it can derive, this may lead to restrictions against these practices being written into the GPL. It's already a tough sell as it is!
I hope companies will exercise great care with how they use the community resources. I know open source software has made a big difference in my life, and I don't want the well to run dry.
Bankruptcy or GPL'ed code? If it were my company, I would be choosing the former.
I mean, really, given how many other companies releasing software under the GPL have croaked, can you blame them?
It is one thing to fund the development of something that is already or making you money, or has a plainly obvious market (ie IPTables, PERL 6.), but to try and build a company on GPL'ed software is pretty much idiotic. I could never put the jobs of all my coworkers at risk by making the assumption that businesses would pay for free software enough to keep me in business, and I can't honestly oppose this decision.
Once again, people are confusing the concept of ownership versus licensening.
Any code Sistina wrote is owned by Sistina.They can license it any way they want. The license indicates how you're allowed to use the code that they own.
IF Sistina wrote all the code, (I don't know if they did or didn't) then they can choose to relicense future versions any way they choose.
Users have to submit "substantial" patches for Sistina to lose their ownership. Substantial is defined by the courts. Sistina could choose to rewtite those parts and regain complete ownership.
Because their previous code was licensed with the GPL, it remains free. People are free to work on that code in a separate repository, as they have done with OpenGFS.
It sounds like no one broke any rules. You may not like that outcome, but it is legal. I do understand it from a business perspective. It is really tough to keep a business running if you don't find some way to protect your IP. I've spent the last year and half trying with XFree86/3D and we weren't particularly successful.
The license seems like a fairly square deal(after a surface skim anyway). In fact, as far as "commerical" licenses go, it's a damned good one. The thing that irritates me is that they should have made their intentions clear from the begining.
If this type of crap becomes common, you can kiss this free testers time good bye, as I simply will not give it anymore(I didn't test GFS, but I do actively test for 3 other projects). I see no profit in me doing free work for commerical ventures, no matter how nice the license is.
To me this reads, if you're going to use your work (that you had to give to us) to make a buck, we want some of that money.
Not if that free software is also commercial software. Linux distributions are definitely a "product offered and resold for revenues", so they'd have to pay a license fee, too.
Sig (appended to the end of comments I post, 54 chars)
God damn moderation system....
;) )
This is an obvious troll people.
GFS has NOTHING to do with internet wide filesystem ala distributed sharing clients..
And EVERYTHING to do with a shared file system between servers ala AFS/CODA.
Example (a).
I just setup 3 node GFS setup ( fibre array storage, and three servers connected via fibre ) to have three database servers share the same file system ( one read write server, two read only servers ).
So please, when you get some moderation points,
and have NO IDEA of what's being posted, keep the point to yourself...
damn
( yes on rare ocasions, even this hardcore FreeBSD user has been know to use linux... but the keyword is rare
This is an abuse of the term "in fact" then, isn't it?
So is it legal for company X to buy a license to GPS, and distribute a patched linux kernel?
My feeling would be no, because it's not legal to distribute GPLed binaries without distributing (or offering) all the sources. Which company X can't do.
If GFS is built using standard exported kernel-module interfaces, it _might_ be legal (though some kernel heavyweights disagree), but if the GFS patch touches kernel internals, anybody distributing Linux+GFS is in violation of their GPL agreement with Linus Torvalds (and others).
And this is somehow going to make Sistina money? By inviting their customers to pay up for the possibility of getting sued by anyone holding Linux kernel copyrights? I'm not impressed.
314-15-9265
... given how many other companies releasing software under the GPL have croaked, can you blame them?
GPLing code allows the code to survive the death of the corporation, rather than go down with it. This keeps the customers from being totally unsupported. So a company may chose to GPL the code when it encounters financial difficulty (or to escrow it to be released GPL in the event of cessation of operation), to give potential customers less reason to resist purchase.
Provided the investors are OK with it, it also allows the former employees to do spinoff works later without legal hangups from the IP being tied up as an asset of a bankrupt company.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
At this time, when companies such as VA Linux and Caldera are retreating from the GPL because it makes it impossible for them to be profitable, the SPL is a move in the wrong direction. We must shift the balance so that companies which create open source software can survive -- not so as to disadvantage them more. We must opt for more freedom -- as is provided by the Apache and MIT X licenses -- rather than less. When we see that businesses that sell products based on collaboratively developed code for which source is available are surviving and thriving, we will know that the balance is right. This hasn't been the case with the GPL, and certainly could not be with a license such as the SPL.
--Brett Glass