2010/11/27 Björnke von Gierke
>
> So we'd all need to pay Oracle for using RunRev (which does not work with
> MySQL databases unless one installs a version of MySQL somewhere)?
I believe that RunRev pays a license fee to include the MySQL connector.
--
Trevor DeVore
Blue Mango Learning Syst
On 27 November 2010 14:06, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>
> joke about "100 years delay" in fact is true ? :-)
> If this is true, then yes, this is big challenge personally for me.
>
> Then I think all closed-source software can claim that we all are GPL, and
> ready to open our sources, e.g. 100-100
Hi Ruslan, I love your energy!
On 27 November 2010 13:10, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
After they have pay billion (9 zeros, not million) of cache for mySQL...
>
But this definitely hints at the possibility that you may need to take a
little break from database programming - I don't think it's the so
> It seemed to me that, although worded with a light-hearted
> reductio ad absurdum, Ruslan's post raised a valid question:
>
> When using GPL code, what is an acceptable time limit for
> making your source available?
Changing the topic - I think this is relevant outside of our other
discussion
> > I think readers already have to see how easy can be catched "own
> > understanding" of licenses. Even lawyers can do long time
> wars around
> > this :-)
>
> that's the point. only lawyers do battle, real partners work
> together. if you are out to bust the GPL by not providing the
> sour
On 27 Nov 2010, at 17:19, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
> Okay, I think we can stop this thread.
>
> I think readers already have to see how easy can be catched
> "own understanding" of licenses. Even lawyers can do long time
> wars around this :-)
that's the point. only lawyers do battle, real partne
On 11/27/10 5:08 PM, "Björnke von Gierke" wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2010, at 15:53, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>
>> Sorry, If license not says 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 year...
>> Then when? And who choose when?
>
> In cotract rights (like for example licensing) both parties agree on common
> terms, and th
Björnke von Gierke wrote:
> On 27 Nov 2010, at 15:53, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
>> Sorry, If license not says 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 year...
>> Then when? And who choose when?
>
> In cotract rights (like for example licensing) both parties agree
> on common terms, and then follow trough with it. A
On 27 Nov 2010, at 15:53, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
> Sorry, If license not says 1 hour, 1 day, 1 week, 1 year...
> Then when? And who choose when?
In cotract rights (like for example licensing) both parties agree on common
terms, and then follow trough with it. As partners, they both agree on the
On 11/27/10 4:28 PM, "Björnke von Gierke" wrote:
> Ruslan. You do know that a legal contract do deliver something (for example
> source code) cannot be postponed indefinitely.
Björnke, Do not try catch me :-)
I have point very clear: 100 years. 1000 years.
There is no indefinite in my example
Ruslan. You do know that a legal contract do deliver something (for example
source code) cannot be postponed indefinitely. Stop trying to stir up
controversy where there is none please, it makes me want to puke.
On 27 Nov 2010, at 15:06, Ruslan Zasukhin wrote:
> On 11/27/10 3:37 PM, "Mark Schon
On 11/27/10 3:37 PM, "Mark Schonewille"
wrote:
Hi Mark,
>> But exists yet NOT users, and even direct competitors.
>> With GPL you must open your source to them all.
>
> This is absolutely not true. I explained this in theh article.
May be then explain please once again?
Because then it seems n
I can't help myself, need so correct this, although I try not to participate in
the discussion.
> But exists yet NOT users, and even direct competitors.
> With GPL you must open your source to them all.
This is absolutely not true. I explained this in theh article.
--
Best regards,
Mark Schone
On 11/27/10 2:42 PM, "Björnke von Gierke" wrote:
Hi Björnke,
> You have some weird ideas about how open source works. For example:
Well, not so weird, just lazy type all scenarios :)
>> Look on sites of all open source GPL projects. You can see on download page -
>> binaries and sources. No
On 11/27/10 2:42 PM, "Björnke von Gierke" wrote:
> I suspect that MySQL has this weird and confusing licensing scheme to fear
> people into buying the product. They even say so on their site: "To anyone in
> doubt, we recommend the commercial license. It is never wrong."
Exactly, here I agree w
Ruslan
You have some weird ideas about how open source works. For example:
> Look on sites of all open source GPL projects. You can see on download page -
> binaries and sources. Nobody should even ask you. You should self upload
> sources the same time as binary. But not on request.
The GPL
On 11/27/10 9:48 AM, "Ruslan Zasukhin"
wrote:
> 3)
>
>> In a third example, I make commercial software, which needs to have MySQL
>> installed. My customers can use my commercial software, for which they do
>> need to buy a license, in combination with the MySQL database engine, for
>> which the
On 11/27/10 3:38 AM, "Mark Schonewille"
wrote:
> Hi,
>
> After reading the discussion about MySQL and open source, recently, in which
> people argued that open source is not free and that MySQL actually is more
> expensive than a commercial product, I decided to call Oracle and ask them for
> th
18 matches
Mail list logo
