On Mon, 2011-01-03 at 15:58 +0530, Raj Mathur (राज माथुर) wrote: > On Monday 03 Jan 2011, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > > precisely - what sustains an open source project is nothing to do > > with the license. It is all about the methodology of development. > > Develop in the open - accept contributions and build a base of > > developers. The larger the base, the more secure the app is from > > hostile take over. Developing in a closet will result in the app > > being in danger of take over. Sqllite is developed with no license - > > it is in the public domain. Apache, postgresql and many many others > > are developed in BSD style licenses - but since they are developed > > in the open with a large base of contributors, they are also immune > > to take over - too many copyright owners. > > So what exactly does this have to do with your original point > vis-a-vis > MySQL and GPL? As far as I can see, now you're talking about > something > else altogether. Please do enlighten me on how this has any > relationship at all to your earlier statement (which I had responded > to):
anyone with half a brain can understand it - very simple. If you have a large pool of developers and you develop your software out in the open, it is immune to take over regardless of the license under which it is released. If you hog the copyright - then the app is ripe for take over at any time. > > > 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 > > Can you please be more clear: are we discussing the merits/demerits > of > licences, are we discussing copyright assignments, or are we > discussing > development methodologies? They are distinct (if related) fields, > and > I'd be glad to discuss any of them, if you could from e-mail to > e-mail > be consistent on which one is under discussion. > > > An interesting thing is the so-called dual-licensed projects. Having > > a 'community' edition with limited functionality to serve a bait to > > buy the 'full version' which is proprietary. This is usually a > > massive con job. And strangely enough 99% of dual licensed projects > > use the GPL. I wonder why. > > Anyone with half a clue about licensing would understand why dual- > licence entities prefer the GPL. Again, I'd be glad to discuss it, please do - very curious to know why people who develop code in closets choose the GPL for their so-called 'community versions'. > but > I'm sure the next mail would be about some unrelated topic and > nothing > to do with anything discussed earlier in this thread, so I'll just > save > myself the effort. possibly I would not benefit from your wisdom - but I am sure there are a lot of people on this list who would. -- regards KG http://lawgon.livejournal.com Coimbatore LUG rox http://ilugcbe.techstud.org/ -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers

