From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:40:53 -0400
From: Rob Latham <rlatham@plogic.com>
Message-ID: <20010831084053.A24948@otto.plogic.internal>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Subject: [linux-lvm] LVM and SPL
Sender: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com
Errors-To: linux-lvm-admin@sistina.com
Reply-To: linux-lvm@sistina.com
List-Help: <mailto:linux-lvm-request@sistina.com?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:linux-lvm@sistina.com>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm>,
	<mailto:linux-lvm-request@sistina.com?subject=subscribe>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.sistina.com/mailman/listinfo/linux-lvm>,
	<mailto:linux-lvm-request@sistina.com?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.sistina.com/pipermail/linux-lvm/>
List-Id: <linux-lvm.redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
To: linux-lvm@sistina.com

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 ]