a lot snipped: On Mon, 2010-10-04 at 12:44 +0530, steve wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/04/2010 11:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: [...] > > Ok, so lets call this scenario (1). Where it is perfectly legal for > recipients > of BSD code to modify it and turn it proprietary *but* there is not way for > recipients of this modified BSD code to get access to the modifications.
ok > > >> > >> > 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!!! > > > > I think you are confusing matters here. Firstly, there are 2 *different* > licenses we are speaking about. GPL and Commercial. That is the meaning of > *dual* licensing. Secondly, yes, you as a recipient of the app, get to > *choose* > which license you want (unlike scenario 1). my problem here is this: there are two licenses. But is it the same software? If I contribute code to mysql under GPL - then can oracle include the same in their commercial mysql? Obviously not - which is why they either have to purchase the copyright from me or cannot include it in the commercial version. In which case there are two versions. I can understand dual boot - but I am unable to understand dual licensing. [...] > > ...because, in the first case it is just like BSD and in the second /less/ > restrictive than BSD !! ie: for sake of argument, let us assume that they > were > only allowed to modify and turn proprietary *if* they changed the name, would > you be ok with it ? yes > > If you would, I'd suggest that as you read further while thinking of the > mysql > commercial license as a BSD license with the change of name clause removed > (<sarcasm> yay ! /sounds/ still 'free-er', doesn't it ?!! </sarcasm> ) this is the two clause BSD license which is non free [...] > What is wrong with selling software as if it was a commodity (and pocketing > millions) when the *very* *same* software is available under the GPL ? It is > still better than selling software as if it was a commodity (and pocketing > millions) without offering the source code (as in scenario 1). I am sorry - I am of the opinion that treating software as a commodity and selling it is evil. Regardless of licenses. But just because it is evil, I do not feel I have the right to restrict people from doing evil things with my software - they can do so as long as they remove my name as a contributor and change the name I have given it. [...] > > Anyways, all that said, let me just say this: > a. I think the BSD license is a good open source license cool - that is all I am arguing about - and will repeat it: BSD is a good open source license - people should be open to it and to the other 40 odd open source licenses and not go around propagating FUD against them and saying that it is an invitation to disaster and GPL is the only way > b. I think the GPL is a /better/ open source license I do not think either is better or worse. All I think is that GPL is more restrictive. Perhaps it is necessary to be restrictive in the case of major projects (that can be embedded) like the linux kernel or iptables) - but evidence shows that many major projects are surviving quite happily under non-GPL licenses. > c. I've tried to explain the reasons I think it is better. If you do not > agree > it is a matter of 'perspective' not 'correctness' (ie: I have a (different) > opinion, I am not wrong). Again, I do not think I have said BSD is better. That is a question of perspective - but if you think GPL is not more restrictive than BSD, you are wrong - but I respect your right to be wrong. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
