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."

8 of 261 comments (clear)

  1. Doens't sound too bad... by Nos. · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From their Q&A on SPL:

    Q: Exactly how is the new SPL structured? Who has to pay under the SPL? A: You are free to download and use the software for free under the SPL, and like the GPL you have access to source code. We encourage input and modification to the source code. 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. Also if you build infrastructure that supports an outsourcing service - you also owe us a license fee on that infrastructure. We think the Sistina Public License strikes a happy medium. Our users are free to download, use our technology, and alter the source code as before with the GPL. or service offerings with our technology will owe us a license fee.

    So in other words, if your're going to use our hard work to make a buck, we want some of that money. Doesn't sound like a bad licensing scheme to me at all. If your going to use it and put it in freely available software, then go ahead.
    1. Re:Doens't sound too bad... by HiThere · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Doesn't sound bad, but it's the wrong way to do it. Two reasons:
      1) They should have been upfront with their user community. If they changed their mind, they should have said so before the last beta. Something like: This is the last beta that we'll be releasing under the GPL ... etc.

      2) They shouldn't do it this way anyway. What they should do is release under two licenses. One for GPL use (non-profit oriented), and one for commercial use.

      It sounds like what they are trying to do is blend the two licenses of step 2 into one license, and that's the wrong choice. It causes extra problems all around. (For them, too, I'm pretty sure.)

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    2. Re:Doens't sound too bad... by Weezul · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You are correct that this is a good lissencing scheme for many products, but there are dangers associated to this kind of scheme. Suppose you had to pay web developers to hunt through Apache modules to figure out who you needed to pay. It would make IIS look a lot more tempting.

      The Free Software community should embrace this sort of lissence they are confident that the software (and it's derivatives) will not be used by many people (say 1%; ala ERP softare) and the software is inherently large (say CAD/CAE pacages). We should replace crytical or modular things which are lissenced this way (ala Gtk vs. Qt).

      Conversly, if only a few people want your produce enough to pay you for it then you are at no risk from competition with a free software replacment (ala ERP software).

      --
      The Christian religion has been and still is the principal enemy of moral progress in the world. -- Bertrand Russell
  2. Interesting.... by Carnage4Life · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From the article:
    In addition, like Ghostscript, GFS is a technology that has a clear OEM market. GFS has attracted OEM vendors who are embedding the technology into their storage appliances and their commercial software offerings. Under the GPL, these commercial vendors are less likely to provide funding for GFS development and maintenance because of the free-rider problem; competitors who don't pay will directly benefit from those who do. The Sistina Public License solves the free-rider problem by creating a level playing field for all OEMs.

    OK, the above partially makes sense if the OEMs have given them this feedback and have shown that this is a way for the company to generate revenue. I'd much rather that Sistina stayed alive and was Open Source instead of Free Software instead of them sticking to their ideological guns and ending up teetering on the brink of death like Caldera, Loki and VA Linux.

    On the other hand some of the conditions of the Sistina Public License strike me as excessive. Specifically I point to the section below:


    3.2. Additional Sistina Rights.
    You agree to provide Sistina with a complete copy of the Covered Code and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed by You (according to the procedure set forth at http://www.sistina.com/licensing.html) even if such Modifications are not distributed in Source Code or Executable form.

    (a) To the extent you do not distribute the Modifications in Source Code form, You hereby grant Sistina an unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, irrevocable, royalty-free right, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute and otherwise exploit such Modifications, and to grant third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as a part of or with the Covered Code under all intellectual property rights (including any patent rights); and Sistina has the right to license or to otherwise transfer to third parties its rights to such Modifications without notice or any obligation (including without limitation the obligation to account for any profits obtained by Sistina) to You.

    (b) To the extent you distribute such Modifications in Source Code form, you hereby assign to Sistina all right, title and interest in and to such Modifications (including the right to sue for past, present and future infringement) under all intellectual property rights (including any copyrights and patent rights).


  3. having your cake and eating it too by neonmatrix · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Unlike previous releases of GFS that were available under the GNU General Public License, GFS 4.2 will be available only under the terms of the newly created Sistina Public License. This license is similar to the Aladdin Public License used for Ghostscript, a program developed by L. Peter Deutsch to interpret PostScript documents. Like Ghostscript, GFS was developed by a single entity (originally a research group at the University of Minnesota and later by Sistina Software), rather than a disparate community of free developers.

    In addition, like Ghostscript, GFS is a technology that has a clear OEM market. GFS has attracted OEM vendors who are embedding the technology into their storage appliances and their commercial software offerings. Under the GPL, these commercial vendors are less likely to provide funding for GFS development and maintenance because of the free-rider problem; competitors who don't pay will directly benefit from those who do. The Sistina Public License solves the free-rider problem by creating a level playing field for all OEMs. The SPL provides Sistina with a means to attain a sustainable revenue stream to continue to develop and support GFS and other software.

    Sistina is also currently certifying hardware to be supplied by a network of qualified re-sellers. For this reason, it is important that Sistina's licensing policies enforce standards for hardware certification, user support, and important customer service issues.

    This is sort of like those stem cells which are free to researchers but have a fee tacked on to any profitability. Unlike the beer-free and speech-free GPL, the nonprofit only, and hence only speech-free, SPL will remove profitability incentives for developers.

    Both of these aspects of freedom, in capitalism, are twined together; the right to utter information is negligible, in the mainstream world of research and development, if there is no profit incentive. Neither the programmers who develop for political reasons nor they who develop for profit reasons will touch this one.

    If a company has a 10 percent chance of duplicating the success of a GPL tool with a closed source and licensed replacement product, it will try. Instead of using the free knowledge base and extending for-profit development from there, a company will pour development dollars into re-inventing the wheel.

    Sistina's new GFS release is the worst of both worlds. It's open source to university geeks, but anyone who wants to spend the money and time making a product good enough for commercial release will be scared off.

    --
    Global warming is good for you!
  4. it's the change in terms that matters by mj6798 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Doesn't sound like a bad licensing scheme to me at all.

    It wouldn't have been a bad licensing scheme if they had used it from the beginning. But changing terms after benefitting from bug reports and suggestions for enhancements from end users who thought they were contributing to a GPL'ed project is wrong.

  5. Exploitation issue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    While I have no beef with a commerical company being upfront from the beginning, laying all their cards on the table so to speak, and letting community developers decide for themselves if they want to contribute or not, I am concerned about a company that starts a project as GPL, receives a lot of community help, then takes the project non-GPL with a license which says, in effect, "what was mine is still mine, what you contributed is now mine, and you can't do anything about it."


    It is a no-brainer to realize you cannot sell or "license" for any significant amount of cash an app that has been developed under the GPL No one will pay cash for something they can get for free by merely downloading it from the web. So, how do you 'forward finance' a development project? That is, how do you get good coders to work for you for free? Start your project under the GPL, but when it is mature enough to market take a branch which is esentially a plagerized or actual version of the GPL code and release it under a propriatary license, source code not available. Without a court ordered disclosure who will be the wiser? Who in the community is willing to invest the money in a legal team to persue the matter? Sistina is betting that no one will. Do they expect lots of moaning, groaning and hand-wringing, but no court appearances?


    Did they bet right? If they did indeed exploit the Linux community this way, does it represent the new business model of the future?


    Maybe we need a GPL addendem which will cut off this avenue of exploitation by requiring GPL users to sign an affidavit that they have no intention of taking the exiting code base propriatary, or something along that line. Have something like that in writing, in advance, before volunteers begin working on the code.

  6. Re:so it was forked by Alan+Cox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I've also explained to the Sistina people that even if they own all the code and can happily relicense it (which may be the case) it requires a huge patch to the kernel so cannot be conceivably consider entirely a "seperate work" nor part of Linus binary modules using existing exported symbols exception.

    We will see what happens in our discussion, and if need be I will be sending them notice recorded delivery that I believe they are violating my copyrights.

    In the mean time I hope IBM who provided the GPL DLM used for some GFS setups and Compaq who are doing all the great cluster work will adopt and support OpenGFS instead.

    The OpenGFS folks would also like to hear from anyone who contributed patches to GFS while it was GPL licensed that are still in the non-free one without their permission.

    Alan