Sure, but the reality is that there are probably way too many developers that have contributed to the source to track down, and if they did track them down and ask to change the way their contribution was licensed the developer probably wouldn't want to do it for nothing. If however from the beginning there was some sort of agreement where if the source was sold as closed source with their contribution, then the developer received some sort of monetary reimbursement or even became a shareholder, it would solve open source's image problem.
jon ----- Original Message ----- From: "James Sleeman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "CF-Talk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2001 8:12 PM Subject: Re: MS Access: True/False Questions > First IANAL (nor have I actually read the GPL in a long time), but the way > I understand it. They are completely within their rights to sell a > closed-source version of their software if they wish to do so. Them > releasing a GPL'd (is it GPL'd?) version does not in any way prohibit them > from also releasing a closed-source version - it's their > software. Likewise they could just as easy stop releasing the GPL'd > version and start releasing a closed version instead. The only caveats > are... if there is source from contributing developers then that source > remains the contributing developer's source licensed by the license the > contributing developer released it under (ie GPL, wether directly or > indirectly through becoming part of the GPL'd mySQL) and as such the > company would have to either not include the contributed code or obtain a > different license for said code from the contributing developer, and if > they were to withdraw the GPL'd version from release existing copies in the > world remain GPL'd (and thus a source fork would likely begin). > > > Of course this is all totally OT. So to bring it back some, when I was > playing with CF on linux I looked at using mySQL but the limitations > (especially on no sub-selects which is something I use often and am not > willing to give up without a fight !) were too great, postgres on the > otherhand worked very well, nice and fast, I've heard that the Vacuum() > procedure which must be run periodically can be a bit of a pain - tying up > the database for inordinate amounts of time, but I guess replication or > something could get around that for large scale sites. And of course it's > free :-) > > At 01:35 PM 12/6/2001, you wrote: > > >If MySQL was allowed to sell a closed version of it's software, instead of > >having to sell overpriced support contracts it would be much more > >successful. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com FAQ: http://www.thenetprofits.co.uk/coldfusion/faq Archives: http://www.mail-archive.com/cf-talk@houseoffusion.com/ Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/index.cfm?sidebar=lists
