Originally posted by Ray7brian2
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Why IBM Now Views LLVM As Being Critical Software
Collapse
X
-
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostThe Linux way does some what reduce the dangers of the GPL but there is a really bad side effect to that also. One example being a lone developer screwing with all of your open development efforts. Here I'm thinking about the port of VLC to iOS. It is a sad day when mental health problem out weigh the community working together.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostGPL, especially in the 3 version is very restrictive and frankly reduces your freedom significantly.
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostThere are better ways to do open source these days.
Both licence types have pros and cons and it's up to the developer(s) to decide which one suits their project(s).
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostIt truly is a damaged concept that needs a bit more rational reimagining.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by scottishduck View PostUh, no. I don't see anyone who forked the OSS code of MySQL having anywhere close to the resource of Oracle available to them.
The value of MySQL is driven largely by the massive use it sees. You can try to get those people to start paying you money, or at the very least you keep mindshare and can help drive people to your more expensive products when they outgrow the cheaper ones. MariaDB is setup to steal much of that marketshare away. We'll see how successful it is, but I don't think it will take that long for it to become a more popular option than MySQL is among the general public. Obviously people who have signed support contracts with Oracle would be the last to switch, but if MySQL ever starts looking like a sinking ship they'll move as well.
Leave a comment:
-
Sure, provided that you leave the copyright notices intact and a reference to the original license terms for the code that was originally released under it.
Last edited by Ray7brian2; 09 May 2013, 02:30 AM.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by scottishduck View PostUh, no. I don't see anyone who forked the OSS code of MySQL having anywhere close to the resource of Oracle available to them. And the reality is that the value of MySQL and most other corporate backed OSS projects is providing enterprise support for the product, which isn't really affected by the license of the software. Having it be OSS is almost certainly to maintain marketshare and utilise crowdsourced bugfixing.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post"Fork" doesn't imply relicensing all previous code to me. Also, the LLVM license explicitly allows "sublicensing", whatever that means.
When I tranfer source I received to you, any open source license needs to provide you with a license. Either you receive a license from the original authors and contributors, or I sublicense the code to you after receiving a license from them.
Either way, I cannot remove any obligations, including preservation of copyright notices. It might be permissible to add obligations; I dislike those who do so.
If you fork LLVM, you will need a critical mass behind you. Currently, you would be competing with something developed by Apple, Google, and Intel, supported by the BSDs, and also used by Mesa...most of whom have a definite preference for permissive licenses.
In fact, you would probably have few contributors who wouldn't be working on GCC otherwise (though you may have some), so you might end up with a small project, with little adoption, but able to stunt GCC.
Now, if Apple started closing most of their work, and Intel got some level of paranoia about this, and Google got scared off from LLVM, then you might be able to get somewhere. Short of that, forget about it.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by smitty3268 View PostNot really. I mean, sure, they could, but that would only have guaranteed that someone would immediately fork the OSS code and everyone would have switched to it, thus removing 99% of the value of MySQL.
Oracle was walking a tight rope, trying to monetize it as much as possible without driving their users away. It looks like they finally reached to far, and are about to lose.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by wizard69 View PostI'm not sure what the problem with Oracle is these days. It isn't like they magically caused all of the MySQL code to disappear the day they bought the database. In fact I can't see any thing that they did that is significantly wrong. People need to understand that they could have simply taken MySQL off the market for good.
Oracle was walking a tight rope, trying to monetize it as much as possible without driving their users away. It looks like they finally reached to far, and are about to lose.
Leave a comment:
-
Originally posted by staalmannen View PostBad example.
It would not have made a difference in that case if it had been BSD licensed since Oracle owned the full copyright (in the old days, MySQL AB had two releases: a paid-for permissive one and a free GPL:ed). If Oracle wanted to they could have closed up the subsequent releases of MySQL without releasing the code (as a copyright holder they can change the terms). What they can NOT do is to change the terms retroactively of already released code, which is exactly the same with permissively licensed code (the code already released will always be open and free but someone can develop it further and choose not to release that code).
This is why the "Linux way" (many copyright holders) of GPL is better than the "FSF way" (one copyright holder) of copyleft : signing over copyright to a single entity gives them a lot of power.
There are ofcourse many side-effects that may be negative. Updating the "GPL2 only" terms in the kernel would now be near-impossible, so issues (like Apache- and CCDL- incompatibility bugs in GPL2) are either worked around or dealt with in other ways.
Leave a comment:
Leave a comment: