Weekly Edition
Return to the Announcements page
| |||||||||||||
Sistina Software Announces Sistina GFS 5.2
Sistina Software has
announced the release of Sistina GFS (Global File System) version 5.2
for the Intel Architecture.
(Log in to post comments)
Sistina Software Announces Sistina GFS 5.2 Posted Jul 8, 2003 21:58 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] Can anyone take this seriously ?Would they be showing source code from their products in the convention, without a typical shared source NDA,... Do they belive that everybody is stupid enough to belive a word they say ?... or... they want to see "damages" reactions after they sent SCO, palying with words like open-source... Even someone that entered yesterday for the IT world, would say that this is not serious, period.
Sistina Software Announces Sistina GFS 5.2 Posted Jul 9, 2003 15:15 UTC (Wed) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] I don't understand why it's not serious. Could you please expain your point one more time without being so emotional?
GFS history: Posted Jul 8, 2003 22:08 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link] Originally, GFS was released under the GNU GPL, the owning company then decided to take it proprietary. The OpenGFS project began to continue developing GFS under the GNU GPL. The project is hosted at:http://opengfs.sourceforge.net/ SistinaGFS is proprietary, no locking at what is being done with your data, no fixing bugs, no helping your friends, no saving money for better causes etc. Ciaran O'Riordan
GFS history: Posted Jul 9, 2003 18:55 UTC (Wed) by christophe (guest, #1557) [Link] I just want to add that they did the switch from GPLed software to proprietary software in a nasty way. The switch was carefully planned and kept secret. During the summer they were no more answering to users (ie. accepting patches from contributors) on their mailing-lists. At this time, it looked like they were all having some vacation. At the end of the summer they announced their new proprietary release. They secretly worked on it at least during the summer and pretended to have rewritten all contributed code (I never verified that because of the NDA but I doubt they did).They had the right to do that as we had the right to fork GFS. What bothered me is that they surprised all their users who spent a lot of time tracking bugs (and contributing functionnalities) and who suddenly had to pay when GFS started to be usable.
GFS history: Posted Jul 11, 2003 16:39 UTC (Fri) by Jerker (guest, #4582) [Link] I downloaded LVM-1.0.7 and LVM2-2.00.01-rc2 from www.sistina.com and did a simple search for copyright notices.grep -i find | xargs grep -i copyright | grep -v -i -e sistina -e Mauelshagen For the autoconf-scripts I found copyright notices for MIT and in the configure-script notices for FSF. Otherwise, only in LVM-1.0.7 the files kernel/lvm-snap.c and PATCHES/lvm-0.8final-2.4.0.patch seem to be copyrighted by anyone else than Sistina - Andrea Arcangeli <andrea@suse.de> SuSE. This seem to make it possible for Sistina to sell LVM at another license. Or make the same license switch they made with GFS also for LVM... Just let enough people depend on LVM and then I guess they can make a good business model out of it. If this is the only way Sistina can make money, by all means keep going. But personally I don't like it, I prefer the code in Linux to be copyrighted by a lot of people. I can live with NVIDIAs binary only modules, but I don't depend on them unless I also buy their hardware. And I am reluctant to depend on MySQL - their new versions of their connectors now seem to be GPL and not LGPL. And I will try to stay away from LVM.
|
|||||||||||||