Certain licenses still allow tinkerers to taste the vStack. Whether they want to is another matter
  • anamethatisnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
    35·
    9 months ago

    Some alternatives:

    • mint_tamas@lemmy.worldEnglish
      2·
      9 months ago

      What’s the background of the lxd-incus fork? On the project page they just state that it was forked after Canonical took over lxd - but what does that mean, exactly? How did they take over an open project? Was there a technical reason for a fork?

      • anamethatisnt@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        9 months ago

        I’d say from a business perspective this is the major thing:
        Real license of LXD

        Per the commit message performing the re-licensing, all further contributions will be under the AGPLv3 license and all contributions from Canonical employees have been re-licensed to AGPLv3.

        However, Canonical does not own the copyright on any contribution from non-employees, such as the many changes they have imported from Incus over the past few months. Those therefore remain under the Apache 2.0 license that they were contributed under.

        As a result, LXD is now under a weird mix of Apache 2.0 and AGPLv3 with no clear metadata indicating what file or what part of each file is under one license or the other.

        This is likely to make it very “fun” for anyone performing licensing reviews to evaluate LXD for adoption in their environment.

        Grabbed from this blog https://stgraber.org/2023/12/12/lxd-now-re-licensed-and-under-a-cla/

  • Treczoks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    251·
    9 months ago

    Along with the termination of perpetual licensing

    Just so? Termination of a perpetual licence?

    • kn33@lemmy.worldEnglish
      5·
      9 months ago

      I explained this in another thread. They’re ending sale of perpetual license. They’re not breaking ones they’ve already sold. That being said, eventually the version that perpetual licenses were sold for will stop getting updates and they’ll become a security risk. That was always the lifecycle for perpetual licenses, though.

    • wmassingham@lemmy.worldEnglish
      51·
      9 months ago

      Yes. A perpetual license just means no fixed end date, not that it’s irrevocable or interminable.

      You can probably get away with continuing to use ESXi free licenses even commercially, you just won’t have support. And at home, nothing is going to stop existing versions from working.

      Incidentally, assuming I found the right license agreement: https://www.vmware.com/content/dam/digitalmarketing/vmware/en/pdf/downloads/eula/universal_eula.pdf

      It doesn’t actually say it’s perpetual. It only says “The term of this EULA begins on Delivery of the Software and continues until this EULA is terminated in accordance with this Section 9”, but that section only covers termination for cause or insolvency, there is no provision for termination at VMware’s discretion. So, while I’m not a lawyer, it definitely sounds like you can continue using ESXi free.

      Actually, reading further, I think the applicable license is this one: https://www.vmware.com/vmware-general-terms.html

      But that one has even less language about license term and termination. Although it does define “perpetual license” as “a license to the Software with a perpetual term”, again not irrevocable or interminable.

      • ikidd@lemmy.worldEnglish
        3·
        9 months ago

        VMware’s support was excruciating anyway. As a VCP, I learned to just figure it out on my own or work around it, they never fixed a single problem or bug I encountered.

  • Jelloeater@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10·
    9 months ago

    If I had a nickel for everytime I saw a old copy of VMware running in prod, I’d have like $20 😅🤣