Hi,
On 10/04/2010 11:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
was this meant to be offlist? anyway I am cc-ing the list on this.
On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 18:21 +0530, steve wrote:
I don't follow the reasoning here. If mysql was under a BSD license,
sun/oracle
could just as well /lifted/ the code without having to even buy mysql
(like
Apple does with the BSD kernel).
precisely. BSD license allows one to make the application proprietary,
but insists on name change and also insists that the application is not
touted as derived from the original. That is why apple calls it open
darwin or whatever. What they do is perfectly legal.
> 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!!!
> So what
> they did was only accept code if the contributor handed over the
> copyright to mysql. (they paid for it - but no handover meant the
code
> was not accepted).
Umm, here is what I know about Mysql licensing:
a. If the user was to package mysql with a proprietary app.
(with/without
changes) he would have to purchase the Mysql commercial license.
with no need to contribute back - but allowed to change and modify the
code under the same name!
b. If the user wanted to distribute sources of his changes yet license
the
changes under a different license, he would have to purchase the
commercial
license and re-distribute his changes.
whatever this means - as I said I do not understand the GPL, and so
cannot understand whether this complies with the GPL or not.
c. If he wanted Mysql to accept (/merge) his changes back to Mysql he
would have
to use the GPL (Note: *not* hand over copyright to Mysql)
back in about 2003 I was involved in a flame war with the owner of
mysql, and he told me that they only accept contributions if the
copyright was handed over to mysql (under GPL of course). And assured my
that this would be paid for. If this had not happened, he would not have
been the owner of the whole copyright of mysql and would not have been
able to sell the software as if it was a commodity (and pocket
millions).
I think this is a fair (in fact, *really good*) business model, as far
as
providing freedom to /users/ of the db (as opposed to someone
developing apps on
top of the db).
I much prefer the business models followed by Redhat and Collabnet -
much cleaner, more transparent and just as successful.
> In that way they had the *whole* copyright to the
> code, and as a result they did not need anyone's permission to sell
> mysql.
huh !?! how would that be any different with BSD ?
This is dealt with above
At least with GPL they are
obligated to further distribute their changes when they sell it.
unless they buy a commercial license in which case they can do what they
want.
> And since the new purchaser now owns the whole copyright - he can
> happily take it proprietary (of course what was already released
cannot
> be wiped out from the internet and forks can take place - but the
brand
> can well go proprietary. This will never happen in BSD licensed code
-
> no one bothers to pay for copyright of contributions and hence the
> contributors have their share of the copyright.
Quite honestly, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't follow the
reasoning.
Everything (the good or the bad) that can be done with GPL, can still
be done
with BSD. The GPL just protects closing up of the source code.
you are wrong - If I buy the full copyright of a GPL'd product, I can
make it proprietary (as far as new development is concerned).
The same
hold for BSD, but the danger is less, as very few BSD product owners
bother about purchasing the copyright from contributors. Very many GPL
people do this.
[...]
Whereas the original BSD licensed BerkeleyDB is now completely
controlled by
oracle, with licensing decided on a per client basis:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/overview/index.html
as far as I know, berkeleydb license is the 2 clause BSD license which
is not recognised by either FSF or OSI as a free software or OSS
license.
