Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Global File System (GFS) Relicensed under SPL

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the license-proliferation dept.

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."

3 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. With many.... by Adambomb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  2. Question... by supabeast! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Non-GPL filesystem + GPL kernel = ??? by Eric+Seppanen · · Score: 5, Insightful
    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.

    --
    314-15-9265