On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > On Sat, 2011-01-01 at 03:20 +0530, Narendra Sisodiya wrote: > > I don't have problem with BSD and nor with GPL. but I love GPL. but > > If somebody says that GPL is restriction to freedom then I must > > oppose because > > it is not true. GPL and viral license are designed so that evil > > company guys > > do not get extra-benefits over it. which is acceptable. > > like what happened to mysql
Again, you are confused between licensing and copyright assignment. The MySQL problem happened because MySQL AB (and then Sun and then Oracle) insisted that all patch submitters hand over copyright to MySQL/Sun/Oracle. In other words, they refused to accept patches and features from developers unless the those developers made them (MySQL/Sun/Oracle) owners of the code. This is NOT the normal mode of working of a FOSS project; for instance, the Linux kernel is also licensed under the GPL but copyright/ownership of each portion of code remains with the original author. MySQL's problem has nothing to do with the licence of the code. Ownership is ownership, regardless of the licence of the object owned. Once again, I'll reiterate my offer of simple readings on the 'net that would help anyone to understand the critical differences between licensing, copyright, trademarks, patents and ownership of code/content. On the other hand, I cannot do anything for those who wish to remain ignorant so that they can continue to misinterpret things to strengthen their fallacious arguments. Regards, -- Raj -- Raj Mathur [email protected] http://kandalaya.org/ GPG: 78D4 FC67 367F 40E2 0DD5 0FEF C968 D0EF CC68 D17F PsyTrance & Chill: http://schizoid.in/ || It is the mind that moves -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
