> ...the GPL states that it would be illegal to inhibit disclosure of > modifications made to GPL-licensed code in the event that a derivative > of the GPL-licensed code gets distributed, among other provisions.
In fact, it goes a bit further than that. Once you have given your GPL'ed code to someone for $1, you cannot forbid him/her from redistributing it for free. Thus, you could only call the GPL a 'commercial' license in the loosest sense. This is why I have no trouble accepting MySQL AB's usage of the term 'commercial license' to describe their alternative licensing scheme for their source code. In the context MySQL AB uses the term, it is easily understood what they mean. Rick Moen's characterization of the phrases 'commercial license' and 'closed source' as being 'meaningless'(*) is typical of his habit of indulging in pedantry when cornered in a debate. It is a habit I have never found to be particularly constructive or enlightening. [(*) for a bunch of 'meaningless' terms, they sure get used a lot.] We should all strive to be accurate but there are times when both parties know what the other is trying to say and yet out of bad faith (or ego or whatever) the other guy just tries to put the other guy down (some people just relish telling other people that they are wrong) by resorting to pedantic arguments. I have no problem seeing how Rick's narrow and overly strict interpretations could be deemed correct, but I have to say that in the context of our discussion (which additionally he seems to be trying to shift), the definitions I have been using/accepting would in fact be the more generally accepted/understood ones. _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
