| |||||||||||||
Lustre's good fortuneLustre's good fortunePosted May 22, 2004 20:35 UTC (Sat) by giraffedata (subscriber, #1954)In reply to: Lustre's good fortune by snitm Parent article: Goodbye to old code aka dual-licensed The situation here isn't what's normally called "dual-licensed." The situation with Lustre is that old versions of the code are offered under GPL but the current version is not. CFS professes an intention to make all code available under GPL when it is no more than a year old. "dual-licensed" means the very same code is offered under two different licenses at the same time. Some licensees will take it under GPL; others will take it under some other license. An example of why someone would want the non-GPL license is that he wants to extend it and ship object code only. But he probably has to pay money for that non-GPL license.
(Log in to post comments)
Lustre's good fortune Posted May 25, 2004 1:13 UTC (Tue) by snitm (guest, #4031) [Link] fair enough, but CFS also licenses, the very same software that will be GPL'd in a year, to customers at a premium so those customers can integrate the software into proprietary software. CFS can do this because they hold the exclusive copyright of the current Lustre codebase.Regardless, CFS is playing games with software that was originally billed as open-source in its purist form (Braam even scorned software that wasn't "free" as in speech; playing games with guilt trips during discussions). BUT now that Lustre has reached a certain level of quality/success CFS is getting greedy. The initial funding from the Govt Labs enabled them to raise their quality of living, now that Govt funds are drying up they need to maintain their quality of life somehow, right? e.g. the Lustre User's Group meeting was in Hawaii and next year supposedly in the Carribean. Bait and switch engineering of closed-yet-"open" projects is a craptacular way to develop GPL'd software.
|
|||||||||||||