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

With many....

[Adambomb]

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

Question...

[supabeast!]

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.

Ownership versus License

[Caballero]

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.

Re:Ownership versus License

[mindstrm]

Actually.. I'll contest that.

If I contribute code to a GPL project, I don't expect ownership of the project, but I am only permitting them to use it under the terms of the GPL; that's why they can continue to use it. The derivateive work *I* have created (their code plus my additions, patches, etc) is then licensed back to them, via GPL, and things continue.

I fail to see how they can then say 'we own all you work'.

Witness linus; can he now turn around and say 'all future versions of the linux kernel are closed-source and licensed by me? NO, because he doesn't hold the copyright on all the code anymore.

Are you sure?

[j7953]

Under the SPL we do expect to get back any changes that are made to the code.

If you intend on building a product offering and reselling it for revenues in the market, you then owe Sistina a license fee for the use of GFS.

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.

If your going to use it and put it in freely available software, then go ahead.

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.

Non-GPL filesystem + GPL kernel = ???

[Eric Seppanen]

So here we have a bunch of filesystem code, distributed as a patch to a GPLed kernel. And the filesystem code is not GPLed, and not GPL-compatible.

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.

GPL as corporate strategy.

[Ungrounded Lightning]

... 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.