On Sun, 2011-01-30 at 16:58 +0530, Rahul Sundaram wrote: > > versions. Redhat is of course an honourable exception. I have yet to > see > > this watered down dual version stuff in the BSD license world. > > This is because others can and will fork BSD code and keep them > proprietary and this business model won't work c.f. NetBSD
it wont work anyway - as it is an idiotic business model. > > > if I am open sourcing in order to provide bait for people to use my > > proprietary software, I would choose the most restrictive license - > GPL. > > I do not care to have developer participation in my project because > I > > will have to buy their copyright before accepting their > contributions > > (like mysql, mono and other projects do) > > MySQL does not buy contributions. They require anyone sending > significant patches to sign a license agreement that bypasses GPL Although I have better things to do than to investigate the nefarious practices of people who subvert the GPL, I remember having a flame war with some mysql biggie some years back where he said that they accept contributions to their open source GPL version as long as the contributor assigns copyright to them - and they pay the contributor. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
