headers
Christian Aichinger | 7 Sep 2005 05:06
Picon

Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions

Hi,
on your homepage you state:
	The Open Virtuozzo kernel is based on the Linux kernel,
	distributed under the GPL terms, so it is licensed under GNU GPL
	version 2.

In the kernel patch you distribute (patch-022stab032-core) several
files (all that you added to the kernel tree) have the following
header though:
	(C) SWsoft, 2005, http://www.sw-soft.com, All rights reserved.

"All rights reserved" doesn't look very GPL compatible to me, and in
particular you didn't really state anywhere that the patch itself
may be freely redistributed (on your homepage you just talk about
the patched kernel).

Could you please clarify these issues, probably by replacing all
those "All rights reserved" statements with the proper GPL statement
("This file is free software...")?

Cheers,
Christian Aichinger

PS: Please CC: me as I'm not subscribed to this list.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
Dmitry Mishin | 7 Sep 2005 05:41
Picon

Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions

Hi,

GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but 
require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this 
issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.

> Hi,
> on your homepage you state:
> 	The Open Virtuozzo kernel is based on the Linux kernel,
> 	distributed under the GPL terms, so it is licensed under GNU GPL
> 	version 2.
>
> In the kernel patch you distribute (patch-022stab032-core) several
> files (all that you added to the kernel tree) have the following
> header though:
> 	(C) SWsoft, 2005, http://www.sw-soft.com, All rights reserved.
>
> "All rights reserved" doesn't look very GPL compatible to me, and in
> particular you didn't really state anywhere that the patch itself
> may be freely redistributed (on your homepage you just talk about
> the patched kernel).
>
> Could you please clarify these issues, probably by replacing all
> those "All rights reserved" statements with the proper GPL statement
> ("This file is free software...")?
>
> Cheers,
> Christian Aichinger
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Christian Aichinger | 8 Sep 2005 10:02
Picon

Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions

On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:48:01AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
> Hi,
> 
> GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but 
> require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this 
> issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
> Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.

Just shipping a COPYING file is not enough. You need a definitive
statement somewhere that the patches (and RPMs, ..) can be used under
the terms of the GPL.

It's probably not strictly necessary to include the GPL header in
every file, but stating "All rights reserved" in every file seems a
bit contradictory to me.

In this case I think the file-specific license (all rights reserved)
overrides the global "use this under the GPL" statement on your
homepage (unless you make it clear there that these file-specific
restrictions don't apply).

Just removing the "All rights reserved" statements from the file
(or replacing them with a "This is part of GPL'ed software") would
be the easiest way IMHO.

Cheers,
Christian Aichinger

PS: Please keep me CC'ed in this thread.
-------------- next part --------------
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Kir Kolyshkin | 8 Sep 2005 10:23
Picon

Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions


Christian Aichinger wrote:

>On Wed, Sep 07, 2005 at 11:48:01AM +0400, Dmitry Mishin wrote:
>  
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>GPL doesn't require to post 'free software' statement in each file, but 
>>require to provide it with each Program copy. So, I think we'll fix this 
>>issue by means of SWSOFT_COPYING file in our SRPM and tarballs.
>>Anyway, we'll fix this issue somehow. Thanks for your point.
>>    
>>
>
>Just shipping a COPYING file is not enough. You need a definitive
>statement somewhere that the patches (and RPMs, ..) can be used under
>the terms of the GPL.
>
>It's probably not strictly necessary to include the GPL header in
>every file, but stating "All rights reserved" in every file seems a
>bit contradictory to me.
>
>In this case I think the file-specific license (all rights reserved)
>overrides the global "use this under the GPL" statement on your
>homepage (unless you make it clear there that these file-specific
>restrictions don't apply).
>
>Just removing the "All rights reserved" statements from the file
>(or replacing them with a "This is part of GPL'ed software") would
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
rpatrick | 10 Sep 2005 18:21

Re: Openvirtuozzo kernel patch license questions


I agree that stating "All Rights Reserved" is allowable as long as there's a reference to the GPL.  The GPL
allows the end-user to redistribute and modify.

License & Copyright are two different things.

Reserving all rights and then allowing the end-user to use the software under the terms of the GPL license is
commonly done if you review a lot of source code (as referenced above in the Linux kernel).  Search around,
there are may "All Rights Reserved" in the copyright notices of free, GPL-licensed, software.

>From gnu.org:

"most free software is not in the public domain; it is copyrighted, and the copyright holders have legally
given permission for everyone to use it in freedom, using a free software license."

"Part of releasing a program under the GPL is writing a copyright notice in your own name (assuming you are
the copyright holder). The GPL requires all copies to carry an appropriate copyright notice."

The how-to is here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
Jonathan | 11 Sep 2005 17:34

How to deal with existing customers?

Hello:

I'm an existing Virtuozzo customer, and I have paid many thousands of 
dollars over the years to SW-Soft for this product.  How does the Open 
Source thing change your product strategy - the product looks like a 1-1 
copy of your existing commercial offerings.

Jonathan
Permalink | Reply | 5 comments |
headers
kir | 11 Sep 2005 19:13
Picon

Re: How to deal with existing customers?


Jonathan,

Open Virtuozzo is not the same as Virtuozzo, it is just a subset of it. You can find the description of the
differences http://openvirtuozzo.org/documentation/tech/virtuozzo/ or http://openvirtuozzo.org/support/.

Basically, Open Virtuozzo is for hackers, while Virtuozzo is for businesses.
Permalink | Reply | 4 comments |
headers
Kirill Korotaev | 12 Sep 2005 05:45
Picon

Re: How to deal with existing customers?

Jonathan,

I would add to the reply from Kir (below) that:
- Open virtuozzo is released publicly as a separate project to create a 
community around VZ technologies, make the whole VZ project better and 
bring the customers even more higher quality product. So the whole 
strategy is aimed to provide better quality to the customers.
- Open Virtuozzo is not the same and the differences are describid e.g. 
on support page. Additionally, commercial VZ stability and usability is 
much higher also, it have releases and much better tested.

Kirill

> Jonathan,
> 
> Open Virtuozzo is not the same as Virtuozzo, it is just a subset of it. You can find the description of the
differences http://openvirtuozzo.org/documentation/tech/virtuozzo/ or http://openvirtuozzo.org/support/.
> 
> Basically, Open Virtuozzo is for hackers, while Virtuozzo is for businesses.
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users@...
> https://openvirtuozzo.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
Permalink | Reply | 3 comments |
headers
Jonathan | 12 Sep 2005 08:24

Re: How to deal with existing customers?

Hey, thanks for both the replies...

So, what is the relationship between SW-Soft and OpenVirtuozzo?  Like, 
for example, support?  Is this the same team of people, or a different 
team of folks, or what?  I'm thinking of adding OV to the product lineup 
(it's perfect for some of the implementations we are currently using 
some competing products for, and it would be great to leverage the same 
expertise accross both our OS and Comm channels), so I'm really curious 
about the support deal you guys laid out on the site.  A six hour 
response time and three incedents a month is perfect for what I'm 
thinking of.

We are partners, and do intend to keep on working with the commercial 
side of the business.  But it would be great to be able to lay the OV 
lineup underneath some of hosted services implementations (it's not a 
price point that makes sense for commercial Virtuozzo, but we're quite 
competent systems and application programmers, so it'd be pretty easy).  
Where does support come from, and how does it really compare?  P (to 
remain anonymous for those who don't know) and his team, or some Open 
Source team, or someone else?

Jonathan

Kirill Korotaev wrote:

> Jonathan,
>
> I would add to the reply from Kir (below) that:
> - Open virtuozzo is released publicly as a separate project to create 
> a community around VZ technologies, make the whole VZ project better
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 2 comments |
headers
dim | 12 Sep 2005 14:41
Picon

Re: Re: How to deal with existing customers?


Yes, this is the same team of support engineers, for the version with paid support. If unpaid version is used
the only support tool is this forum, mailing list and community. 

SWsoft is the main contributor and maintainer of the Open Virtuozzo project, and it seems that it would stay
the same for a while, due to aggressive Virtuozzo roadmap and lots of dedicated resources involved on
SWsoft side.

The pricing for supported open virtuozzo, and commercial virtuozzo
for specific scenarios is expected to be very close if not the same. We'll contact SWsoft's sales and get
their answer posted here or directly to you.
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |

Gmane