maria-discuss team mailing list archive
Mailing list archive
Re: Backporting bug fixes to 1.0?
I have been fired for speaking out about the GPL and MariaDB actions that have caused great harm to our ecosystem.
It has been pointed out that I have a non-compete agreement. None of my tools compete with MariaDB and I have no non-public knowledge of MariaDB technology. GPLScale remains free software under the GNU GPL license and it is my right to fork a github repo. I am not paid to work on GPLScale and I don't intend to get paid to maintain it by anyone. All my projects are labors of love.
Who wants to hire me? I'm dedicated, honest, open, and I have integrity. I'm willing to risk everything for what I believe in.
Email me at:
greenlion at gmail dot com
I have been a proponent of GPL for a long time, and I don't need publicity.
Justin Swanhart on July 23, 2008 at 12:09
The “thing is” that we shouldn’t have to write it. MySQL may be ‘open source’, but it isn’t ‘open software’. With all the talk recently of proprietary extensions, the documentation licensing issues, the whole ‘enterprise’ vs ‘community’ debacle, well, MySQL has totally shown that they are not ‘Open Software’ company.
WHEN I WAS SEVENTEEN I BROKE THE LAW AND DROVE FROM PITTSBURGH PA TO BOSTON MA FOR THE FIRST FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION CONFERENCE. I sat down and had breakfast with STALLMAN, TORVALDS, AND RAYMOND! My whole life is open source. I've made my living off it and I intend to make sure others have the same opportunities that I have.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Aug 18, 2016, at 9:51 AM, Justin Swanhart <greenlion@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have created a GitHub fork of MaxScale which does not include the 2.0 branch. The repository is called GPLScale.
> There is a big potential problem with this. Take for example the file server/core/utils.c, which now has a new license:
> This file WAS covered under GPL:
> When there is a bugfix in 2.0 for server code that existed in 1.0, can that code be backported directly into GPLscale?
> a) util.c in 2.0 is clearly derivative of 1.0, and is therefore a derivative work of 1.0 and therefore still covered by GPL and b) there is a "violation" of GPL, because 1.0 GPL code is being linked against code covered by an incompatible license (other code in MaxScale).
> Almost all of the files in MaxScale 2.0 derive from 1.0 so this problem is not just in one file of course.
> The FSF says that the owner of the software can't legally violate the GPL they can morally violate the GPL.
> Will MariaDB commit to backporting all bugs in 1.0 code into the 1.0 branch?