Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Open Standards + Community Support = Healthy Wireless Networks
Posted by: Glenn Seiler 2009-01-24 12:45:25
See Full Story
You may be thinking "who needs another open source High Availability project?" Or, in fact, "why do we need any open source HA project?" For those who do not know, OpenSAF is the latest in a line of open source HA projects that is specifically designed to address high availability and clustering. First we'll look at what OpenSAF is and then some of the previous open source HA projects. We will look at some of the unique characteristics of the OpenSAF project that make it different from earlier HA projects and more like successful open source examples such as Eclipse or Apache.
Never confuse marketing with the truth.
As the maintainer of openais, I can tell you that OpenAIS and its sister spinoff Corosync are defacto open-source community adopted standards. They are shipped in virtually every community derived distribution as well as Suse and Red Hat's commercial distributions. They are the basis for countless thousands of GFS2 and OCFS2 deployments as well as other SA Forum compliant deployments. They have actually seen field deployments which have improved their quality immeasurably in comparison to other immature projects which have seen no field time and probably never will.
As for licensing, LGPL/GPL is much more restrictive then BSD. Every major third party software vendor that uses these sorts of tools would rather have the flexibility of the Revised BSD license then the restrictions placed upon them by the GPL and LGPL.
This article may have been appropriate in 2002, but it fails at fact-checking in 2009.
Regards
-steve
As the maintainer of openais, I can tell you that OpenAIS and its sister spinoff Corosync are defacto open-source community adopted standards. They are shipped in virtually every community derived distribution as well as Suse and Red Hat's commercial distributions. They are the basis for countless thousands of GFS2 and OCFS2 deployments as well as other SA Forum compliant deployments. They have actually seen field deployments which have improved their quality immeasurably in comparison to other immature projects which have seen no field time and probably never will.
As for licensing, LGPL/GPL is much more restrictive then BSD. Every major third party software vendor that uses these sorts of tools would rather have the flexibility of the Revised BSD license then the restrictions placed upon them by the GPL and LGPL.
This article may have been appropriate in 2002, but it fails at fact-checking in 2009.
Regards
-steve
The fact the Open Source is now here to stay is now obvious. Reports such as this merely highlight another domain that is using Open Source (which I suspect is not new either). As usual, one of the challenges becomes managing the open source content and its licensing obligations. Like any other project built on Open Source (OS) content, you can not assume that only "permissible" content (for example LGPL) would be used. Developers need education, and a method of managing the content that ends up in a project (a la Protecode or Black Duck) must be deployed. At the end of the day, ensuring licensing compliance becomes the price you pay for OS.
