← Back to team overview

maria-discuss team mailing list archive

Re: Additional promise to the MCA


On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:15 PM, Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi Monty, Henrik
> On 07/10/2009, at 12:34 AM, Michael Widenius wrote:
>> I still think it's quite long and not much easier to understand that
>> what we have now:
>> "Monty Program Ab agrees that when it dual licenses code, it will not
>> restrict the way the third party licensee uses the licensed copy of
>> the code nor restrict how they use their own code. "
> In that case you might as well just keep it all GPL or BSD and sell it
> rather than dual licensing?
> Then the recipient has all the normal GPL or BSD rights and obligations that
> apply to the rest of the code anyway, without need for extra licensing
> texts.
> Dual would only make sense for discrete/distinct components, but even there
> it might be easier to just have it be GPL or BSD.
> People come back to the original company for expertise/customisation anyway,
> as they're the experts. As long as the service is good.
> There's also no incentive to like republish stuff, as that wouldn't be the
> core business of the client company. They wouldn't have interest in that.

It is easier to contribute code using BSD/GPL than MCA/SCA when
working at a large company. People responsible for IP at such
companies understand the BSD and GPL. When presented with a new and
unique agreement such as the SCA or MCA, they must evaluate the
agreement. That takes time and money.

But Monty Program accepts code under MCA or BSD, so this isn't an issue for me.

Mark Callaghan

Follow ups