From: Igor Seletskiy (iseletsk_at_psoft.net)
Date: Fri 30 Jan 2004 - 19:52:36 GMT
Sorry about the slip up :). I meant that there will be no licensing
issues. We don't make money on FreeVPS, it is just a side product to
H-Sphere. It is GPL - because Linux kernel is GPL. All our patches are
are available online. If you like any of them - you can take them, parts
of them, adopt them to linux-vserver or what ever. We might build a
consulting business around it at some moment, yet GPL is GPL - and thats
the beauty of it :)
Anyway, it is up to you, I had interest to merge, yet if there is not
enough interest from linux-vserver maintainers - I am fine with it as
well. Lets our projects co-exists in a warm friendly atmosphere, as two
separate projects. We can swap patches from time to time :)
Best Regards,
Igor Seletskiy
Herbert Poetzl wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 07:07:31PM -0500, Igor Seletskiy wrote:
>
>>Hello Everyone,
>>
>>I will follow up and add some more info. Alexey Lyashkov was hired by
>>Positive Software in 2002 to add enhancements and speed up development
>>of vserver project (it was vserver back then). Several more developers
>>where added at later stages. I was mostly interested in creating virtual
>>server environment for hosting companies. As vserver development
>>stopped, we decided to create our own branch (freeVPS).
>>As the name says - it is free. As part of linux kernel - it is GPL (I
>>don't think it is legal to produce any kind of patches to linux kernel
>>under any different license). Also, with tools it is more complex - most
>>of the tools are GPL as well. Only those tools that are unique to
>>h-sphere to provision freeVPS are covered by commercial license.
>>So, from the licensing standpoint - there should be any issues.
>
>
> hmm, a freudian slip? well let's for now assume
> that there are no license issues involved and you
> provide a list (maybe on the web) of all sources
> covered by GPL and they are all which is required
> for FreeVPS to use it.
>
>
>>The reason redhat kernel was select - due to some back ports from 2.6 -
>>like O(1) scheduler - that made it very convenient & easy to improve
>>virtualization without sacrificing too much of the performance. Also,
>>the fact that patches are for redhat kernel - doesn't reduce its ability
>>to work on any other linux distro - it is still linux kernel.
>
>
> sure, but I doubt that a RH 7.3 kernel (2.4.18.x.y)
> will be the first (or even second) choice of a debian,
> gentoo, suse or even mandrake person, so a vanilla
> kernel might be acceptable to some degree, but the
> ultimate goal should be a distro agnostic version.
>
> I have to admit, I didn't spend much time with freeVPS
> lately, so I don't know it's current status, and what
> the tool are capable of, and what not, maybe you could
> elaborate on that for a start ...
>
>
>>That is also why I think merge between linux-vserver & freeVPS makes
>>sense. In 2.6 - we are going to go with standard kernel (as all the
>>necessary pieces already there).
>
>
> well, that is something we both have in common, and
> I don't see a problem if you base your development
> on the experimental releases linux-vserver does for
> 2.6.x as long as the software stays free ;)
>
>
>>Regarding how intrusive are changes - they probably are. We tried to
>>create very good, highly isolated, high performance virtual environment
>>that would sustain hosting environment. So we had to assume that inside
>>each virtual server - there were "hostile" root users. I understand that
>>it can break bunch of additional patches against vanilla kernel - yet,
>>for us virtualization was more imported.
>
>
> I would like to split this into three categories
> a) security features
> b) stealth features
> c) nice to have features
>
> although I prefer lightweight and non intrusive
> patches, I would not hesitate to do some intrusive
> modification to satisfy a) but not for b) and c)
> where they can still be supported as addons
>
> I also try to separate logic blocks and provide
> patches for each one, which actually allows easy
> portation and adaptation, and even removal of
> some components (was done for the iunlink part)
>
>
>>Regarding "patches are welcome" - it is not that easy. I cannot have my
>>guys working on two projects. Thats why I want to be sure that
>>a) There are enough interest in merging
>> (aka finding compromises when necessary)
>
>
> well, obviously there _is_ enough interest on your
> side, and as I pointed out several time, there is
> always interest on working together on my side,
> and I already made some compromises with Alex, we
> had quite some discussions regarding the interface
> on the irc channel, I don't know if he adhered that
> interface but for my part I tried where possible.
>
>
>>b) FreeVPS design strategies are ok for linux-vserver developers
>
>
> hum, hum, that is something I can only reject.
> I'm not doing this project to follow some strategies
> figured out by some management of yours, to promote
> or sell your product more efficiently, and as I can't
> speak for the other developers, I would not commit
> myself to following some 'design strategies' at all
>
> so I would say, as long as your 'strategies' are okay
> for linux-vserver and linux-vserver strategies are
> okay for you, we can work together, if at some point
> that isn't true anymore, we part and everybody is fine
>
>
>>c) We can come up with a set of common goals, tasks and with a way to
>>work together.
>
>
> I'm all ears ...
>
> my suggestions for working together would be
>
> - have some discussions about the goals on ml or irc
> - separate and document the codebase (featurewise)
> - let the community decide about the strategy
>
> best,
> Herbert
>
>
>>Regards,
>>Igor Seletskiy
>>
>>
>>Herbert Poetzl wrote:
>>
>>>n Thu, Jan 29, 2004 at 04:34:00PM -0500, Igor Seletskiy wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Hi Herbert,
>>>>
>>>>My name is Igor Seletskiy. I own psoft (maker of freeVPS). I wander what
>>>>are your thoughts about merging linux-vserver & freeVPS?
>>>>I believe at some points freeVPS is more advanced then linux-vserver
>>>>(like our new memory accounting module, new network routing, also, &
>>>>mount tables), on the other hand - I am pretty sure that there are bunch
>>>>of places where linux-vserver is more advanced.
>>>>I spun off freeVPS when Jacques virtually stopped releasing anything.
>>>>Yet, seeing how linux-vserver took off - I wander what your feelings are
>>>>about merging projects & working together.
>>>
>>>
>>>I always tried to keep contact to Alexey Lyashkov, who,
>>>if I'm not mistaken, started and maintains the vserver
>>>branch, now known as freeVPS (I wonder if that information
>>>is incomplete?)
>>>
>>>I'm forwarding this to the mailing list, because I think
>>>it is of interest for the community, and I hope you do not
>>>take this as a personal offense (which isn't intended).
>>>
>>>some facts (as I see them):
>>>
>>>- freeVPS has some features the current linux-vserver
>>> implementation lacks (memory, networking, ...)
>>>
>>>- freeVPS is limited to a certain kernel (RH 2.4.18)
>>> and distribution (RedHat 7.3) and I assume arch
>>> (i386) too
>>>
>>>- the License of tools and kernel patches is not
>>> obvious to me, although kernel patches basically
>>> default to GPL
>>>
>>>- the changes freeVPS made to the RH kernel are very
>>> intrusive and might introduce various issues which
>>> need some reviewing and a lot of testing
>>>
>>>my opinion:
>>>
>>>I'm convinced that 'working together' in a well defined
>>>way, and even 'merging' various parts, provided that they
>>>are covered by an open and free license, could be very
>>>beneficial for both projects, but I currently do not see
>>>a simple way to do that (ideas welcome ;) ...
>>>
>>>That said, I'm not convinced that it can't be done, it
>>>just needs some work on both sides and especially some
>>>official statements from your side, what how and why
>>>psoft is/will be involved in this (well there is a
>>>commercial product H-Sphere, right?)
>>>
>>>btw, linux-vserver development is free, and as I said
>>>many times, patches are always welcome, so if your aim
>>>is to 'improve' the quality of a free linux-vserver
>>>implementation, publishing patches agains recent dev.
>>>versions would be a great way to do that ...
>>>
>>>Now here is the point, where I would like to ask the
>>>community for their opinion on that issue, because I
>>>might be the current project leader, but the project
>>>itself has evolved and become a community project.
>>>
>>>best,
>>>Herbert
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Best Regards,
>>>>Igor Seletskiy
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>Vserver mailing list
>>Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
>>http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
>
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
>
>
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver