3 ms·
If I understand the article correctly, that's not the point. The point is that no license by itself is enough, because the copyright holder is not bound by the
by lutorm 17y ago
If I understand the article correctly, that's not the point. The point is that no license by itself is enough, because the copyright holder is not bound by the license.
- gaius 17y agoWell, no, it is the point. The GPL doesn't say "no dual licensing", it doesn't say "GPL takes precedence over other licenses", it doesn't say "rights revert to FSF if your company is acquired". Perhaps if it did no-one would use it, but the fact is the MySQL people did use the GPL, and now it hasn't gone the way RMS wanted but no license violation has occurred so he should butt out. As far as I know his organization doesn't even have a line of code in MySQL.