"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
