ProxmoxVE will change LICENCE?

[mmenaz]

OK,
Conclusion : PROXMOXVE= PAY
nobody say otherwise, you just tell the truth.
People who want to lose their freedom, and continues to pay proxmoxve, since it is no longer a choice.
It is the right of the Proxmox company to get paid.
For others, there are : oVirt, openstack, CloudStack ...
The community just wants the truth, on this one you took the members of the community for idiots.
Sorry for this truth.

You seem confused in Freedom/money...
First of all, freedom here is the 4 freedom of GPL regarding CODE, what keeps the user and the community free in their computation
To keep your freedom, now you are asked to pay and only if you want "certified" binaries. This will contribute to the ones that gives you AGPL code that you can inspect, check, learn from, patch etc.
For others, there are : oVirt, openstack, CloudStack ... until they realize that need money to keep the development, so will ask you. Or will stop the development. Or have users that donate enough money

If you want Free(dom) code, as I want, I think what proxmox asks is a modest issue that worths a lot
If you want Free(dom) code and not pay, you can choose other Free project hoping they will get money from someone else but you
If you want free (no pay) only, you can go to some proprietary solutions

If you don't support Free software development now, you could have no more choice in the future than IT slavery

 

[dietmar]

I only asked for the relation between the source versions and the enterprise packages

That information is not free (that is a enterprise feature).

 

[shsm]

That information is not free (that is a enterprise feature).

So if i will pay for community licence i will received that info? And will i get the source of binary package in that case? If it's true why now ent repo haven't deb-src source line? If i pay for binaries i have to right get the same sources for simple repacking, right?

 

[dietmar]

So if i will pay for community licence i will received that info?

You then have access to the entrerprise repository, and thus see the package versions.

And will i get the source of binary package in that case?

Again, sources are available via git (we do not provide deb-src packages).

 

[ivensiya]

Please translate it.

Я не смогу написать на английском так, как могу на русском. Так что простите!

Мы являемся официальным партнером компании Microsoft по программе SPLA.
Я всего лишь хочу показать на сколько не выгоден платный Proxmox против платного HyperV

Цены:
Начну с HyperV
За лицензию по SPLA на Datacenter мы платим 76$/CPU в месяц. За установленные VM на Datacenter мы не платим ничего! Поддержка бесплатная!
Теперь Proxmox
За 1 лицензию на 1 CPU мы заплатим 6$ в месяц + за каждую Windows VM например Standart мы должды будем заплатить по 15$! Поддержка платная!

Proxmox:
На каждой node мы держим по 20 VM с 1GB RAM, итого за каждую Proxmox node мы будем платить 306$/в месяц только за лицензии.
Себе стоимость деленная на 20 выходит 15,3$ за 1GB ram + цена за Node 2500$ / 10 месяцев = 12.5$. Теперь прибавим 12.5$ +15.3$ себе стоимость 1GB ram = 27,8$. Затем нам надо добавить сюда свет, охлаждение, оплата сотрудникам. Примерно, наш клиент будет платить за 1 GB ram около 35$-40$. С такой ценой, мы на рынке долго не проживем.

HyperV:
Цена за 1GB ram 76$/20vm = 3.8$ за 1 GB ram + 12.5$ за node + наша прибыль (5$ - 10$) = 21.3$ - 26.3$. С такой ценой у нас будет клиент, и через 10 месяцев мы будем получать чистую прибыль в размере 426$ - 526$/node в месяц.

Это простая математика!

 

[shsm]

You then have access to the entrerprise repository, and thus see the package versions.Again, sources are available via git (we do not provide deb-src packages).

Why? If you get money for binary packages, please provide a simple way to get THE SAME sources, like a Debian, whose code base you are using? Debian provide binaries for free. If they will provide binaries for the Proxmox project for a money too, huh?

 

[Russell Shaffer]

...
If you don't support Free software development now, you could have no more choice in the future than IT slavery

Hmm ... I don't know ... there are ENDLESS examples of open source projects that are "free". One good one is Debian.

I wonder if Debian (on which Proxmox is based) charges Proxmox for access to their repos (/sarcasm)?

 

[kobuki]

That information is not free (that is a enterprise feature).

OK, that's clear. Then please introduce a method for paying customers for building the exact packages that can be downloaded via the binary repo (this is actually a requirement of the OSS model). Probably stating the GIT paths/versions is sufficient.

 

[shsm]

Please translate it.Я не смогу написать на английском так, как могу на русском. Так что простите!Мы являемся официальным партнером компании Microsoft по программе SPLA.Я всего лишь хочу показать на сколько не выгоден платный Proxmox против платного HyperVЦены: Начну с HyperVЗа лицензию по SPLA на Datacenter мы платим 76$/CPU в месяц. За установленные VM на Datacenter мы не платим ничего! Поддержка бесплатная!Теперь ProxmoxЗа 1 лицензию на 1 CPU мы заплатим 6$ в месяц + за каждую Windows VM например Standart мы должды будем заплатить по 15$! Поддержка платная!Proxmox: На каждой node мы держим по 20 VM с 1GB RAM, итого за каждую Proxmox node мы будем платить 306$/в месяц только за лицензии. Себе стоимость деленная на 20 выходит 15,3$ за 1GB ram + цена за Node 2500$ / 10 месяцев = 12.5$. Теперь прибавим 12.5$ +15.3$ себе стоимость 1GB ram = 27,8$. Затем нам надо добавить сюда свет, охлаждение, оплата сотрудникам. Примерно, наш клиент будет платить за 1 GB ram около 35$-40$. С такой ценой, мы на рынке долго не проживем.HyperV: Цена за 1GB ram 76$/20vm = 3.8$ за 1 GB ram + 12.5$ за node + наша прибыль (5$ - 10$) = 21.3$ - 26.3$. С такой ценой у нас будет клиент, и через 10 месяцев мы будем получать чистую прибыль в размере 426$ - 526$/node в месяц.Это простая математика!

Вы в корне не правы, лицензии на Proxmox VE касаются только HW node. Оплата только за сокет (физический) CPU. И запускать можно сколько угодно нод - это на оплату не влияет никак.In English: You are not right. Proxmox VE licensing affects HW node only (per CPU socket). So you can run how many virtual nodes as you wish without any addtional fee.

 

[badji]

Hmm ... I don't know ... there are ENDLESS examples of open source projects that are "free". One good one is Debian.

I wonder if Debian (on which Proxmox is based) charges Proxmox for access to their repos (/sarcasm)?

You do not understand what you say.
said frankly that proxmoxve became chargeable.
It is your right, but say frankly.
Debian, when I download it and I use it, I know it does not pay. Freebsd same ... but I do prevents me from using my freedom to sponsor and make promossion project with my money. I'm free.

I'm not against the payment, but to people who follow you for 5 years and that promote the project is a ruse.

The open-source community is reliable and honest, she does not like to take her for idiots.
look at the history of the Eucalyptus project, with his cunning, he was alone ...
I've made ​​my platform openstack with 3 physical servers with sdn-neutron and it function well.
for those of you interested here is a link to the tutorial, it's great.
https://github.com/mseknibilel/Open...MultiNode/OpenStack_Grizzly_Install_Guide.rst

Good luck to the new proxmoxve project with 4.50 € and see : http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/ubuntu-edge

 

[jdw]

It sure does not seem like there is any right side in the debate.

On the one side, people who demand everything be handed to them in a neat little box for free... so disappointing.

Proxmox VE is heavily based on other free technologies: Debian, KVM, ceph, etc. The value they provide (at the new 50 EUR/CPU/year tier which essentially does not include support) is in integration, testing, building, packaging, distributing, and creating UI for these packages. They do a lot of hard work to accomplish these things. The project is "open source" not "open binaries" or "open everything you ever do." If you do not value the work they charge for, don't buy it. But the premise that if they give away something they must give away everything or they are somehow failing to live up to an ideal is just stupid. Ideals are fine, but have no nutritional value.

Hard not think to the primary value of open source is mostly that when people who think this way finally nag the developers into quitting the project, someone else can pick it up.

Also, if you have eleventy jillion non-profit CPUs to buy support for, I hope you have already contacted them about volume discounts before you complain that the cost is too high.

Alternatively if you use the money instead to hire somebody to package up their work for yourself, that's fine. If you then don't post the result for free download by all, that's fine too, but you will be doing exactly what you fault Proxmox for doing.

On the other side, providing people with a free ISO and a default upgrade path that includes the test package sets seems doomed to backfire horribly. People do need to make a conscious decision to be beta testers. It's not as if the time between releases is long, so perhaps some strategy like a default free repository with no or only very critical updates between releases would be more community-friendly than a potentially unstable one. The issue of whether Proxmox's goal is to be community friendly or not and of how community behavior may be affecting the desirability of that goal to them is perhaps one I will not touch on further just now.

So, the 50 EUR/CPU/year price seems a reasonable baseline for the scope and volume of work that Proxmox does to keep releases flowing and stable and easily upgradeable, particularly since one can decide whether to pay or not on a per-cluster basis. Once we kick 3.1 around a bit, it will probably get us to buy subscriptions for a reasonable number of CPUs. Finally.

However, it would be nice if people buying licenses from outside the EU could avoid paying VAT.

 

[ivensiya]

Вы в корне не правы, лицензии на Proxmox VE касаются только HW node. Оплата только за сокет (физический) CPU. И запускать можно сколько угодно нод - это на оплату не влияет никак.In English: You are not right. Proxmox VE licensing affects HW node only (per CPU socket). So you can run how many virtual nodes as you wish without any addtional fee.

Я прав в то что написано, так мы использовали другую стратегию. Как хост, мы использовали proxmox. Так как это стабильнее для тех же Windows. А теперь нам это надо лицензировать для того чтоб получать стабильные обновления. А это сюрприз, для всего проекта. Плюс ежемесячный сюрприз на все количество железа. Будем обдумывать дальнейшие шаги, и скорее всего, будем прощаться с proxmox.

Отправлено с моего SPH-L710 через Tapatalk

 

[shsm]

Proxmox VE is heavily based on other free technologies: Debian, KVM, ceph, etc. The value they provide (at the new 50 EUR/CPU/year tier which essentially does not include support) is in integration, testing, building, packaging, distributing, and creating UI for these packages. They do a lot of hard work to accomplish these things. The project is "open source" not "open binaries" or "open everything you ever do." If you do not value the work they charge for, don't buy it. But the premise that if they give away something they must give away everything or they are somehow failing to live up to an ideal is just stupid. Ideals are fine, but have no nutritional value.

If Proxmox Team will provide for ent users deb-src it will be right, because ent customers already paid for "integration, testing, building, packaging, distributing". So they have right to get the sources.

Also, if you have eleventy jillion non-profit CPUs to buy support for, I hope you have already contacted them about volume discounts before you complain that the cost is too high.

Before non-profit project was run we passed the investigation and choose only free software. But in one perfect day after upgrade we see annoying popup about subscribing, wow! Super! So we have several ways - pay for many licenses, rebuild from git and support ours own repo with stable software, or switch to anything else, like oVirt or similar. Before i red no any words on proxmox sites about moving to way with paid enterprise repository.

 

[shsm]

Я прав в то что написано, так мы использовали другую стратегию. Как хост, мы использовали proxmox. Так как это стабильнее для тех же Windows. А теперь нам это надо лицензировать для того чтоб получать стабильные обновления. А это сюрприз, для всего проекта. Плюс ежемесячный сюрприз на все количество железа. Будем обдумывать дальнейшие шаги, и скорее всего, будем прощаться с proxmox.Отправлено с моего SPH-L710 через Tapatalk

Sorry, почитал более внимательно, понял в чем соль.

 

[jdw]

If Proxmox Team will provide for ent users deb-src it will be right, because ent customers already paid for "integration, testing, building, packaging, distributing". So they have right to get the sources.

Since you are unwilling to pay, it's unclear why you care what people who pay do or don't get. Further, the Proxmox sources are open, and open to all not just those who pay, the link is already posted in this thread. To add a src repo to the default config for production servers makes no sense of any kind.

Before non-profit project was run we passed the investigation and choose only free software. But in one perfect day after upgrade we see annoying popup about subscribing, wow! Super! So we have several ways - pay for many licenses, rebuild from git and support ours own repo with stable software, or switch to anything else, like oVirt or similar. Before i red no any words on proxmox sites about moving to way with paid enterprise repository.

Maybe you don't remember shareware nag screens from times long ago.

There is a new release of Proxmox every 2-3 months. These will still be available free, right? Why do you have to update so much more often than that? Do you not test a release to find whether it meets your needs before you deploy it? It's a serious question; one of our first Proxmox clusters is still running 1.9, a machine in that cluster has 2 years uptime. Sorry if you have not had this kind of success with it. (All told we have machines running right now on 1.9, 2.2, 2.3, 3.0 and 3.1.)

So the updates and fixes are still free, the only difference is you have to wait until the next release (a couple of months) to get them. The source is available in the interim if you really need it that badly. You could set up your own small repo just for these packages you absolutely must update between releases. But no, instead Proxmox is obligated to do this for you, for free? Why?

Seems to me oVirt is no Proxmox competitor. Proxmox, boot the ISO, wait a bit, and pretty soon migrate the virtual machines. oVirt, the setup instructions are "1. Install Fedora." Ugh. Whatever step 2 is I will never find out. So if you go that route, you are indeed doing it yourself, same as you could with Proxmox.

Definitely Proxmox did a poor job of publicizing this change before they made it, and there is lots of room for improvement in how they are handling it. They also change the pricing and details of the it's-not-a-license support subscription quite often. It would be too often, except the deal seems to get more favorable to the customer each time, so that really can't happen too often.

One suspects that Proxmox are pretty desperate to find a revenue model that will allow them to sustain development because they wouldn't keep changing it like this if it was working well for them.

So by all means, give them feedback about how much you would pay and on what terms. But if you give the "give it all to me for free or I will stop using it" ultimatum, what difference does it make if you use it or not? If someone says to you: "Either give me free stuff or else I will go away and leave you alone!" What would you do?

If you have done significant things for the Proxmox open source project and community... code contributions, documentation, wiki updates, extensive support of other users on the forums, etc. maybe contact them and see if you can work out a deal. Maybe they will trade you enterprise repository access in exchange for some actions on your part that will take less time than rolling it yourself. But from what I read in this thread, the most prominent thing most of the complainers seem to contribute to the project is their awesome presence and in determining how valuable they think that is, it does not always appear that they are applying the correct exchange rate.

 

[shsm]

Since you are unwilling to pay, it's unclear why you care what people who pay do or don't get. Further, the Proxmox sources are open, and open to all not just those who pay, the link is already posted in this thread. To add a src repo to the default config for production servers makes no sense of any kind.

I going to buy the one license, it's no problem. But i absolutelly need optional deb-src in enterprise repo. Not as default option. But these sources have to be in repository according to AGPL.

There is a new release of Proxmox every 2-3 months. These will still be available free, right? Why do you have to update so much more often than that? Do you not test a release to find whether it meets your needs before you deploy it? It's a serious question; one of our first Proxmox clusters is still running 1.9, a machine in that cluster has 2 years uptime. Sorry if you have not had this kind of success with it. (All told we have machines running right now on 1.9, 2.2, 2.3, 3.0 and 3.1.)

I have testing servers, and one of it was upgraded today. And sometimes we add new HW hosts to our project. With a new STABLE release of ProxmoxVE, of course. So i cannot add a new server without subscription to production.

So the updates and fixes are still free, the only difference is you have to wait until the next release (a couple of months) to get them. The source is available in the interim if you really need it that badly. You could set up your own small repo just for these packages you absolutely must update between releases. But no, instead Proxmox is obligated to do this for you, for free? Why?

From agreement:"(Re-)Distributing Software packages received under this Subscription Agreement to a third party orusing any of the Subscription Services for the benefit of a third party is a material breach of theagreement. Even though the open source license applicable to individual software packages may giveyou the right to distribute those packages (this limitation is not intended to interfere with your rightsunder those individual licenses)."It's a violation of the AGPL license. So i feel free to post that situation to a gpl-violations.org maillist.

Seems to me oVirt is no Proxmox competitor. Proxmox, boot the ISO, wait a bit, and pretty soon migrate the virtual machines. oVirt, the setup instructions are "1. Install Fedora." Ugh. Whatever step 2 is I will never find out. So if you go that route, you are indeed doing it yourself, same as you could with Proxmox.

About oVirt, this is just an example. Doesn't matter

So by all means, give them feedback about how much you would pay and on what terms. But if you give the "give it all to me for free or I will stop using it" ultimatum, what difference does it make if you use it or not? If someone says to you: "Either give me free stuff or else I will go away and leave you alone!" What would you do?

Proxmox team first announced an ultimatum. Without any warnings. Pay or use testing software.

 

[oakleeman]

Maybe it's all the different primary languages that is causing me confusion, but can someone explain this in layman's terms for me. I'm not going to get into the politics of licensing, cost, or software packages.

I migrated our quite old 10 blade 2-socket, quad-core CPU infrastructure from Vmware esxi standalone to Proxmox 2.3 a while back. I just used their provided script to upgrade from 2.3 to 3.0. I did apt-get update & apt-get upgrade first and then ran the provided script.

If I were to now upgrade our infrastructure to 3.1 via either apt-get or via their process I wouldn't be able to upgrade to future versions without either paying for support for each blade or downloading the ISO and doing a complete re-install? And if I were to run apt-get I would get "beta" updates but not the latest stable version?

On a side-note, I'm in the US and it looks like the basic support would cost around $67 per socket, or around $134 per blade annually? This seems funny since our blades are only worth around $300 apiece but would cost $3000 apiece to upgrade.

Maybe they should implement a sliding scale, 1-10 total sockets is $X/socket, 11-100 totals sockets is $Y/socket, etc.

 

[Ein]

Under AGPL v3, they're actually required to give subscribers the source code used to build the specific versions of packages from the "enterprise" repository. They also must distribute any build scripts they use. Anything less is in direct violation of the AGPL v3. The only way for it to be legal is if all contributors of Proxmox (that is, all persons/entities which own a copyright on any part of the code) decide to adjust the license. It's not allowed under AGPL v3, but they can change the license to allow it if they own the copyright to every line of code, which is quite possible through copyright disclaimers.

As it stands, though, I only see the AGPL v3. So they're actually required to give the source out. (Note: Dumping a link to the git repo doesn't count. At the very least, you need to provide specific tags to the versions used.)

 

[jdw]

I going to buy the one license, it's no problem. But i absolutelly need optional deb-src in enterprise repo. Not as default option. But these sources have to be in repository according to AGPL.

No, according to GPL, which applies to stuff they are using (e.g. Debian), they must make source code of GPL components available, including modifications, if any. It does not mandate how. Offering to mail people disks is still considered adequate under GPL. Git is certainly adequate to this purpose.

"

A compilation of a covered work with other separate and independent works, which are not by their nature extensions of the covered work, and which are not combined with it such as to form a larger program, in or on a volume of a storage or distribution medium, is called an “aggregate” if the compilation and its resulting copyright are not used to limit the access or legal rights of the compilation's users beyond what the individual works permit. Inclusion of a covered work in an aggregate does not cause this License to apply to the other parts of the aggregate."

​

So nothing about the presence of GPL/AGPL packages in Proxmox VE magically imposes GPL/AGPL restrictions on anything they did that is not a modification of such package.

​

I have testing servers, and one of it was upgraded today. And sometimes we add new HW hosts to our project. With a new STABLE release of ProxmoxVE, of course. So i cannot add a new server without subscription to production.

3.0 and 3.1 are not stable? Uhoh. Please file bug reports so 3.2 will be.

You say "cannot" a lot. But really "don't want to" is what you mean. You could do the work yourself rather than pay them to do it. But you want them to do it for free and still won't say why they should.

From agreement:"(Re-)Distributing Software packages received under this Subscription Agreement to a third party orusing any of the Subscription Services for the benefit of a third party is a material breach of theagreement. Even though the open source license applicable to individual software packages may giveyou the right to distribute those packages (this limitation is not intended to interfere with your rightsunder those individual licenses)."

That is why you cannot redistribute the packages they give you. It does not explain why you cannot redistribute packages you build on your own. (Because there is no such prohibition, other than you don't want to.)

It's a violation of the AGPL license. So i feel free to post that situation to a gpl-violations.org maillist.

Do you not understand that they are licensing the software to you under the AGPL? The AGPL provisions apply to you not them. Anything they wrote, they can do whatever they want with. They owe you nothing. It is you who have obligations if you choose to use it. (If there is AGPL code in Proxmox VE that does not originate from Proxmox, I am not aware of it. But if there is any, I am in no way convinced that they have not met their obligations with respect to it.)

If you want to say "Oh I am mad about what they did so I will try to make GPL trouble for Proxmox to get even," OK, fine, do that. But at least admit that you are acting purely from spite.

If you have a real concern that they have not met the license requirement of some GPL component they are using, by all means raise it to them. Naturally in doing so you will include all the steps you took to obtain the source you feel entitled to, what you did to build it, and whatever error result you received that convinced you there is something missing. Because GPL is about being able to build from source, and until you have proof that that cannot be done, or proof that you gave them something under GPL that they are not distributing properly, you have no standing.

If you were not concerned about GPL compliance yesterday but today you are then it is $$$free$$$ software you are concerned with, not Free Software. Again, fine, but don't act like a crusader for good while doing it. You crusade only for yourself.

Proxmox team first announced an ultimatum. Without any warnings. Pay or use testing software.

Or use production-quality release versions made available several times per year. Or build your own updates.

But yes, as I have agreed already, the way they handled communicating this (i.e. not at all) is indefensible and their "default to testing" approach will eventually be shown to be a bad idea. This is hardly the first time they have shown poor judgement in how they communicate with the community though. They seem to me to be a pretty surly bunch. And that is not a new development so surely it is already a factor you accounted for in decision making.

 

[Ein]

3.0 and 3.1 are not stable? Uhoh. Please file bug reports so 3.2 will be.

I don't think you understand how stable branches work. Basically, 3.1 is stable when it is released. Then bugs are found, and those bugs are fixed. Bugfixes are included as updates to the 3.1 series, while new features are put off until the 3.2 series. If you sit at the original 3.1 release, you're going to have unfixed bugs.

Not to mention the security issues with not updating for months at a time.

Git is certainly adequate to this purpose.

Actually, Git access itself is not adequate. Anybody who has received the binaries must be able to access the exact source used to build those binaries, like a deb-src package, or (at minimum) a Git tag that they can take to the repo to get the right version out. Offering the Git repo is close, but not enough to satisfy the requirements of their license. They must relicense future code to allow them to keep what they're doing, or they must release the exact source used to build those packages (the specific versions in the enterprise repo).

And, of course, any enterprise customer is free to then compile that source and release it on their own, free repo. They claim that doing so violates their subscription, but that right is protected under their license.

Really, the main issue here is that the staff are pretending that nothing has really changed, and that the license is still the same and the system is still fully open (not open-core). If they just released 3.1 under a dual proprietary/AGPLv3 license, and weren't scummy about it, they'd be fine.

Because GPL is about being able to build from source, and until you have proof that that cannot be done, or proof that you gave them something under GPL that they are not distributing properly, you have no standing.

Unless they tell you exactly which Git revisions were used, then no, you can't build it from source.