From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Subject: Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL In-Reply-To: Message from Rob Latham of "Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:40:53 EDT." <20010831084053.A24948@otto.plogic.internal> Mime-Version: 1.0 Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:11:18 -0700 From: "Michael J. Declerck" Message-Id: <20010831181118.4F4BE32643@spook> Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com List-Help: List-Post: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-lvm@sistina.com I'll preface this with the statement that I am not a lawyer (nor do I have a desire to become one). rlatham@plogic.com said: > sistina this week switched the license for the GFS tools from the GPL > to the SPL > http://www.sistina.com/Sistina%20Public%20License%201.0.pdf > I'm worried now that Sistina will switch the license for LVM. However, > considering there was almost a fork of the project (mostly) because of > something as "simple" as mailing list policy, i guess openLVM would > pop up again pretty quickly in that case... Is it concievable that > the kernel patches will stay GPL'ed but a more restrictive license > applied to the userspace tools ? LVM is GPL'ed and the copyright is held by a number of entities that have contributed substantial pieces of code to the project over its life. IMO, this makes it impossible to relicense LVM under a different license. Sistina has no intention of changing the existing LVM user-space tools to another license. The LVM kernel patches and use-space tools will remain under the GPL. As I said earlier, LVM is GPL'ed and has multiple copyright holders currently that protect its position as a GPL project. Sistina is committed to maintaining this status and working with the LVM community to enhance and maintain it. --- Michael Declerck, declerck@sistina.com +1.510.823.7991