[linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Rob Latham]

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 ?

==rob

-- 
[ Rob Latham <rlatham@plogic.com>         Developer, Admin, Alchemist ]
[ Paralogic Inc. - www.plogic.com                                     ]
[                                                                     ]
[ EAE8 DE90 85BB 526F 3181                   1FCF 51C4 B6CB 08CC 0897 ]

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2001 at 08:40:53AM -0400, Rob Latham wrote:
> 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 ?

Even if just the userspace tools would switch to something even more
restrictive than GPL I'd go for OpenLVM.  Just my 2 (Euro-)Cents.

	Christoph

-- 
Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade.

RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Chemolli Francesco (USI)]

> 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 ?

This is what happens with the GFS too: the kernel patches remain GPL'ed.

-- 
	/kinkie 

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Jeff Layton]

Rob Latham wrote:

> 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 ?
>
> ==rob

I hate to say it - time to fork the code. We could also jump ship to
IBM's opensource EVMS. To be honest, I don't want to do either thing
because I really like LVM, I've had very good luck with it, and I use
it in production systems. However, changing licenses like this, while
not on LVM, is not a good sign to me (call it a bad feeling if you like).

Unfortunately, I'm not a low-level coder, otherwise I'd jump it and fork
the code. Anyone want to volunteer? Anyone from Suse?

However, before parting company, I'd like to say thank you to all of
the developers who have put in very long hours and lots of work into
LVM. It was a much needed piece to the Linux puzzle.

Thanks!

Jeff Layton

Lockheed-Martin


>
>
> --
> [ Rob Latham <rlatham@plogic.com>         Developer, Admin, Alchemist ]
> [ Paralogic Inc. - www.plogic.com                                     ]
> [                                                                     ]
> [ EAE8 DE90 85BB 526F 3181                   1FCF 51C4 B6CB 08CC 0897 ]
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html

RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Chemolli Francesco (USI)]

> I hate to say it - time to fork the code. We could also jump ship to

Uhm, aren't you overreacting? Sure, the GFS thing is not pleasant (I know,
I'm a GFS user) but it's a different project at all, with a VERY different
"market".

Wait for Sistina to actually _do_ somethingbefore coming
to town with guns ablaze.

> IBM's opensource EVMS. To be honest, I don't want to do either thing
> because I really like LVM, I've had very good luck with it, and I use
> it in production systems. However, changing licenses like this, while
> not on LVM, is not a good sign to me (call it a bad feeling 
> if you like).

Well, they haven't taken anything from you yet. IF they turn LVM into
proprietary stuff, THEN do fork :)

-- 
	/kinkie 

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Michael J. Declerck]

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

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Jeff Layton]

"Chemolli Francesco (USI)" wrote:

> > I hate to say it - time to fork the code. We could also jump ship to
>
> Uhm, aren't you overreacting? Sure, the GFS thing is not pleasant (I know,
> I'm a GFS user) but it's a different project at all, with a VERY different
> "market".

Agreed.

>
>
> Wait for Sistina to actually _do_ somethingbefore coming
> to town with guns ablaze.

OK, maybe I did over react a little. However, I've seen this before and
I DO NOT want to see it again.

I agree that Sistina may be in a very akward position and I think it is
a very good thing for them to change the license on GFS. They have
to compete with the spector of EMC looming over them (I tried to
convince Lockheed to give up on EMC and a different route without
any luck. Their reason? "Because they're EMC!").


>
>
> > IBM's opensource EVMS. To be honest, I don't want to do either thing
> > because I really like LVM, I've had very good luck with it, and I use
> > it in production systems. However, changing licenses like this, while
> > not on LVM, is not a good sign to me (call it a bad feeling
> > if you like).
>
> Well, they haven't taken anything from you yet. IF they turn LVM into
> proprietary stuff, THEN do fork :)

Yes. But until the email from Michael Declerck we heard nothing
from Sistina to reassure us. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are
needed :)

However, you convinced me. I'll wait and see (but I'll start testing
EVMS to hedge my bets :)   ).

Thanks.


Jeff Layton

Lockheed-Martin


>
>
> --
>         /kinkie
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Michael J. Declerck]

All,

Sorry about the slow response to these issues.  A lot of us were at Linux
World Expo without very good connectivity.  Coming back to all this email
was interesting to say the least :)

laytonjb@bellsouth.net said:
> Yes. But until the email from Michael Declerck we heard nothing from
> Sistina to reassure us. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are needed :) 



---
Michael Declerck, declerck@sistina.com   +1.510.823.7991

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Jeff Layton]

"Michael J. Declerck" wrote:

> All,
>
> Sorry about the slow response to these issues.  A lot of us were at Linux
> World Expo without very good connectivity.  Coming back to all this email
> was interesting to say the least :)

Dam! I forgot about Linux World. Sorry about that :(

Thanks,

Jeff


>
> laytonjb@bellsouth.net said:
> > Yes. But until the email from Michael Declerck we heard nothing from
> > Sistina to reassure us. Sometimes pre-emptive strikes are needed :)
>
> ---
> Michael Declerck, declerck@sistina.com   +1.510.823.7991
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html

RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Chemolli Francesco (USI)]

> I agree that Sistina may be in a very akward position and I 
> think it is
> a very good thing for them to change the license on GFS. They have
> to compete with the spector of EMC looming over them (I tried to
> convince Lockheed to give up on EMC and a different route without
> any luck. Their reason? "Because they're EMC!").

Actually, EMC and GFS are different things AFAIK. EMC provides you
with virtual disks over FC, you still have to use them.
I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run GFS over an EMC-provided
virtual disk.

-- 
	/kinkie 

RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Gonyou, Austin]

Yeah..there's no linking or anything. One is a hardware vendor, the other is
a software vendor.

-- 
Austin Gonyou
Systems Architect, CCNA
Coremetrics, Inc.
Phone: 512-796-9023
email: austin@coremetrics.com 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chemolli Francesco (USI) [mailto:ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it]
> Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 3:43 AM
> To: 'linux-lvm@sistina.com'
> Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL
> 
> 
> > I agree that Sistina may be in a very akward position and I 
> > think it is
> > a very good thing for them to change the license on GFS. They have
> > to compete with the spector of EMC looming over them (I tried to
> > convince Lockheed to give up on EMC and a different route without
> > any luck. Their reason? "Because they're EMC!").
> 
> Actually, EMC and GFS are different things AFAIK. EMC provides you
> with virtual disks over FC, you still have to use them.
> I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run GFS over an EMC-provided
> virtual disk.
> 
> -- 
> 	/kinkie 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
> 

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Luca Berra]

On Mon, Sep 03, 2001 at 10:42:58AM +0200, Chemolli Francesco (USI) wrote:
> Actually, EMC and GFS are different things AFAIK. EMC provides you
> with virtual disks over FC, you still have to use them.
> I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run GFS over an EMC-provided
> virtual disk.

Emc sells a product called SRDF which provides data replication between
emc2 boxes, it is also possible to use the replica in readonly mode.
this is one of the feature provided by GFS.

regards,
L.

-- 
Luca Berra -- bluca@comedia.it
        Communication Media & Services S.r.l.
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

Re: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL

[Jeff Layton]

"Gonyou, Austin" wrote:

> Yeah..there's no linking or anything. One is a hardware vendor, the other is
> a software vendor.

True. But when I look for something "like" a SAN for Linux, GFS
would be one product I would consider. In fact, we were considering
GFS and an EMC SAN for a project recently (until it got canned).

I guess I was thinking about this project when I made the comment.
Sorry about that.

Jeff Layton

Lockheed-Martin


>
>
> --
> Austin Gonyou
> Systems Architect, CCNA
> Coremetrics, Inc.
> Phone: 512-796-9023
> email: austin@coremetrics.com
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chemolli Francesco (USI) [mailto:ChemolliF@GruppoCredit.it]
> > Sent: Monday, September 03, 2001 3:43 AM
> > To: 'linux-lvm@sistina.com'
> > Subject: RE: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL
> >
> >
> > > I agree that Sistina may be in a very akward position and I
> > > think it is
> > > a very good thing for them to change the license on GFS. They have
> > > to compete with the spector of EMC looming over them (I tried to
> > > convince Lockheed to give up on EMC and a different route without
> > > any luck. Their reason? "Because they're EMC!").
> >
> > Actually, EMC and GFS are different things AFAIK. EMC provides you
> > with virtual disks over FC, you still have to use them.
> > I don't see why you shouldn't be able to run GFS over an EMC-provided
> > virtual disk.
> >
> > --
> >       /kinkie
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > linux-lvm mailing list
> > linux-lvm@sistina.com
> > http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> > read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> linux-lvm mailing list
> linux-lvm@sistina.com
> http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm
> read the LVM HOW-TO at http://www.sistina.com/lvm/Pages/howto.html