 joakoPremium
join:2000-09-07
/dev/null
kudos:5
 ·Comcast
| reply to Lumberjack
Re: Dumb... said by Lumberjack:said by wtansill:said by Matt:We donate to the open source projects we use, but we're damn sure not going to allow anyone to redistribute our code simply because we included a GPL piece in it. The GPL is holding back a lot of very good projects from achieving commercial success. Then use another license. It's not as if there aren't plenty to choose from. You can't use another license if the code used in your project is GPL code. You are forced to use GPL as your license by including GPL code so really, they have to find other code to reuse or re-invent the wheel themselves. Not exactly. I can write an application that uses MySQL for database storage but that doesnt mean I need to make my code GPL. Of course if I include MySQL binaries to make install easier I need to distribute the source for MySQL and MySQL will always be licensed under GPL.
--
Am Heimcomputer sitz' ich hier, und programmier' die Zukunft mir |
Reviews:
 ·Verizon FiOS
| Correct joako.
But if I used a GPL based library that's not GPL-lite to interact with MySql, then I'd have to release my code as well. So instead I'd have to write that shared library all over again (from my own invention, even though it's going to be the same functionality) to prevent having to release under GPL terms.
A lot of companies avoid GPL just because of what you said... they don't want to be hammered by having to re-release source because they use a binary even though they don't have their own product in GPL domain. They also then are concerned by customers not wanting to buy it because GPL authors can wash their hands of any liability where people that reuse it (as in your MySql) example can not.
Forum: Sorry for my GPL comments taking the news thread way off topic  .
--
»www.fairtax.org |
