On 01/30/2011 03:11 PM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: > I misunderstood you - I thought you were talking of software companies > that produce code. In this case about 90% of them release under the GPL, > and a good number of them are bogus in the sense that they release a > watered down version as bait for customers to use their proprietary > versions. Redhat is of course an honourable exception. I have yet to see > this watered down dual version stuff in the BSD license world.
This is because others can and will fork BSD code and keep them proprietary and this business model won't work c.f. NetBSD > if I am open sourcing in order to provide bait for people to use my > proprietary software, I would choose the most restrictive license - GPL. > I do not care to have developer participation in my project because I > will have to buy their copyright before accepting their contributions > (like mysql, mono and other projects do) MySQL does not buy contributions. They require anyone sending significant patches to sign a license agreement that bypasses GPL Rahul _______________________________________________ ILUGC Mailing List: http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
