maria-discuss team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Additional promise to the MCA
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Arjen Lentz <arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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:
> In that case you might as well just keep it all GPL or BSD and sell it
> rather than dual licensing?
MariaDB is GPL and we can't do dual licensing in that sense.
> 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
Actually, the text being discussed here imposes no requirements on the
contributor, it is something that Monty Program gives away.
The fact that nobody (and I do mean nobody, it's not about you) except
me has understood what Monty wants to do, indicates that the text is
> 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.
Pooling copyrights is not primarily done to have any benefit for MP,
it is done so we could potentially give code back to Sun (to benefit
MySQL customers, and Sun of course) or to make sure we can stay
license compatible with MySQL (to benefit MariaDB and its users).
And yes, this is something we must do, so there is no point in
discussing the pooling of copyrights as such.
Just to repeat what Mark said, contributing as BSD seems to be the
most popular way, and MP has no problem with that.