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."
http://www.opengfs.org/
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.
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.
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)
Doesn't sound bad, but it's the wrong way to do it. Two reasons: ... etc.
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
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.
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
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.
LILO boot: linux init=/usr/bin/emacs