[OT] open-source license issues

["Jérôme M. Berger"]

spir wrote:
> On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote:
>> On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
>>> Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may
>>> not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to
>>> make money"?
>>>
>>
>> According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual
>> licensed
>> GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's
>> **less**
>> restrictive than the vanilla one.)
> 
> There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the
> open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is
> said to be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to
> (end-)users, in that it allows direct users of the software to deprive
> them from rights that would have been guaranted by a free software license.
> 
	OTOH, the GPL is a lot more restrictive for direct users since it
deprives them of the right to license *their own* code any way they
want (at least, LGPL does not have that restriction).

		Jerome
-- 
mailto:jeberger at free.fr
http://jeberger.free.fr
Jabber: jeberger at jabber.fr

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d/attachments/20110412/f77b98f1/attachment.pgp>