Weekly Edition
Return to the Distributions page
| |||||||||||||
OpenMediaVault 0.2 released
The first OpenMediaVault
release is available. OpenMediaVault is a Debian-based distribution
aimed at network-attached storage applications; it is derived from
FreeNAS. More information can be found on the OpenMediaVault wiki.
(Log in to post comments)
website > wiki Posted Oct 18, 2011 20:23 UTC (Tue) by hollis (subscriber, #6768) [Link]
The wiki is lame. A much better link is their website at http://www.openmediavault.org/
OpenMediaVault 0.2 released Posted Oct 19, 2011 8:03 UTC (Wed) by MKesper (guest, #38539) [Link] Another misleading site about commercial use and the GPLv3:Beside being freely available for personal end-users, System Builders and System Integrators, in general Installers, require a commercial license for OpenMediaVault. To become an installer and get detailed informations please contact us and send an email to info AT openmediavault DOT com. This is really sad.
OpenMediaVault 0.2 released Posted Oct 19, 2011 9:40 UTC (Wed) by silopolis (subscriber, #77228) [Link]
seconded :(
I hoped we'd finally have a Linux based alternative to FreeNAS or NexentaStor but licensing and OCA makes it a complete failure and no go
PS: don't talk me about OpenFiler, project and community management are in the worthes I've seen to date... to be avoided.
OpenMediaVault 0.2 released Posted Oct 23, 2011 4:04 UTC (Sun) by steffen780 (guest, #68142) [Link]
The license statement at http://openmediavault.org/licensing.html is awful squared. First it says all rights are reserved. Then it says GPL3. Then it says it is free for "personal end-users" only. I'd read that as permission to use it under the GPL, and additional permission for personal use. But I'm no lawyer ;)
OpenMediaVault 0.2 released Posted Oct 24, 2011 10:38 UTC (Mon) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]
It's awful cubed, actually.
The licensing-page also says that it's "(c)2009-2011 by Volker Theile" which is very misleading.
It might be true, for the (valuable) glue-job he did. But it doesn't come close to correctly describing the copyright-status of the offering as a whole. In reality 99%+ of the offering is copyright someone-else.
|
|||||||||||||