was this meant to be offlist? anyway I am cc-ing the list on this. On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 18:21 +0530, steve wrote: > I don't follow the reasoning here. If mysql was under a BSD license, > sun/oracle > could just as well /lifted/ the code without having to even buy mysql > (like > Apple does with the BSD kernel).
precisely. BSD license allows one to make the application proprietary, but insists on name change and also insists that the application is not touted as derived from the original. That is why apple calls it open darwin or whatever. What they do is perfectly legal. > > > Reason: it was GPL'ed and dual licensed. Since it was dual licensed, > > mysql could not add any code contributed from outsiders, as if it > did, > > then such code could not be added to it's proprietary version. > > I think you are misinformed. The mysql commercial license is for > 'users' of > mysql who do not want to comply with the GPL: > > http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/#3 the exact text is: <quote> Q3: As a commercial OEM, ISV or VAR, when should I purchase a commercial license for MySQL software? A: OEMs, ISVs and VARs that want the benefits of embedding commercial binaries of MySQL software in their commercial applications but do not want to be subject to the GPL and do not want to release the source code for their proprietary applications should purchase a commercial license from Oracle. Purchasing a commercial license means that the GPL does not apply, and a commercial license includes the assurances that distributors typically find in commercial distribution agreements. </quote> wonderful things one can do with GPL applications ;-). The same mysql: you can either use it as a GPL'ed app or you can use it as a proprietary app!!! > > > So what > > they did was only accept code if the contributor handed over the > > copyright to mysql. (they paid for it - but no handover meant the > code > > was not accepted). > > Umm, here is what I know about Mysql licensing: > > a. If the user was to package mysql with a proprietary app. > (with/without > changes) he would have to purchase the Mysql commercial license. with no need to contribute back - but allowed to change and modify the code under the same name! > > b. If the user wanted to distribute sources of his changes yet license > the > changes under a different license, he would have to purchase the > commercial > license and re-distribute his changes. whatever this means - as I said I do not understand the GPL, and so cannot understand whether this complies with the GPL or not. > > c. If he wanted Mysql to accept (/merge) his changes back to Mysql he > would have > to use the GPL (Note: *not* hand over copyright to Mysql) back in about 2003 I was involved in a flame war with the owner of mysql, and he told me that they only accept contributions if the copyright was handed over to mysql (under GPL of course). And assured my that this would be paid for. If this had not happened, he would not have been the owner of the whole copyright of mysql and would not have been able to sell the software as if it was a commodity (and pocket millions). > > I think this is a fair (in fact, *really good*) business model, as far > as > providing freedom to /users/ of the db (as opposed to someone > developing apps on > top of the db). I much prefer the business models followed by Redhat and Collabnet - much cleaner, more transparent and just as successful. > > > In that way they had the *whole* copyright to the > > code, and as a result they did not need anyone's permission to sell > > mysql. > > huh !?! how would that be any different with BSD ? This is dealt with above > At least with GPL they are > obligated to further distribute their changes when they sell it. unless they buy a commercial license in which case they can do what they want. > > > And since the new purchaser now owns the whole copyright - he can > > happily take it proprietary (of course what was already released > cannot > > be wiped out from the internet and forks can take place - but the > brand > > can well go proprietary. This will never happen in BSD licensed code > - > > no one bothers to pay for copyright of contributions and hence the > > contributors have their share of the copyright. > > Quite honestly, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't follow the > reasoning. > Everything (the good or the bad) that can be done with GPL, can still > be done > with BSD. The GPL just protects closing up of the source code. you are wrong - If I buy the full copyright of a GPL'd product, I can make it proprietary (as far as new development is concerned). The same hold for BSD, but the danger is less, as very few BSD product owners bother about purchasing the copyright from contributors. Very many GPL people do this. [...] > Whereas the original BSD licensed BerkeleyDB is now completely > controlled by > oracle, with licensing decided on a per client basis: > > http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/overview/index.html > > as far as I know, berkeleydb license is the 2 clause BSD license which is not recognised by either FSF or OSI as a free software or OSS license. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
