Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: Why IBM Now Views LLVM As Being Critical Software

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by staalmannen View Post
    Bad example.

    It would not have made a difference in that case if it had been BSD licensed since Oracle owned the full copyright (in the old days, MySQL AB had two releases: a paid-for permissive one and a free GPL:ed). If Oracle wanted to they could have closed up the subsequent releases of MySQL without releasing the code (as a copyright holder they can change the terms). What they can NOT do is to change the terms retroactively of already released code, which is exactly the same with permissively licensed code (the code already released will always be open and free but someone can develop it further and choose not to release that code).
    I'm not sure what the problem with Oracle is these days. It isn't like they magically caused all of the MySQL code to disappear the day they bought the database. In fact I can't see any thing that they did that is significantly wrong. People need to understand that they could have simply taken MySQL off the market for good.
    This is why the "Linux way" (many copyright holders) of GPL is better than the "FSF way" (one copyright holder) of copyleft : signing over copyright to a single entity gives them a lot of power.
    The Linux way does some what reduce the dangers of the GPL but there is a really bad side effect to that also. One example being a lone developer screwing with all of your open development efforts. Here I'm thinking about the port of VLC to iOS. It is a sad day when mental health problem out weigh the community working together.
    There are ofcourse many side-effects that may be negative. Updating the "GPL2 only" terms in the kernel would now be near-impossible, so issues (like Apache- and CCDL- incompatibility bugs in GPL2) are either worked around or dealt with in other ways.
    I find myself very bothered by GPL the more I've become aware of what it really implies. The actions of the FSF over the last few years have turned my thinking about GPL 3 and the GPL in general, around towards the negative direction. It truly is a damaged concept that needs a bit more rational reimagining.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    I'm not sure what the problem with Oracle is these days. It isn't like they magically caused all of the MySQL code to disappear the day they bought the database. In fact I can't see any thing that they did that is significantly wrong. People need to understand that they could have simply taken MySQL off the market for good.
    Not really. I mean, sure, they could, but that would only have guaranteed that someone would immediately fork the OSS code and everyone would have switched to it, thus removing 99% of the value of MySQL.

    Oracle was walking a tight rope, trying to monetize it as much as possible without driving their users away. It looks like they finally reached to far, and are about to lose.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    101

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Not really. I mean, sure, they could, but that would only have guaranteed that someone would immediately fork the OSS code and everyone would have switched to it, thus removing 99% of the value of MySQL.

    Oracle was walking a tight rope, trying to monetize it as much as possible without driving their users away. It looks like they finally reached to far, and are about to lose.
    Uh, no. I don't see anyone who forked the OSS code of MySQL having anywhere close to the resource of Oracle available to them. And the reality is that the value of MySQL and most other corporate backed OSS projects is providing enterprise support for the product, which isn't really affected by the license of the software. Having it be OSS is almost certainly to maintain marketshare and utilise crowdsourced bugfixing.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    267

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    "Fork" doesn't imply relicensing all previous code to me. Also, the LLVM license explicitly allows "sublicensing", whatever that means.
    Mostly unrelated.
    When I tranfer source I received to you, any open source license needs to provide you with a license. Either you receive a license from the original authors and contributors, or I sublicense the code to you after receiving a license from them.
    Either way, I cannot remove any obligations, including preservation of copyright notices. It might be permissible to add obligations; I dislike those who do so.

    If you fork LLVM, you will need a critical mass behind you. Currently, you would be competing with something developed by Apple, Google, and Intel, supported by the BSDs, and also used by Mesa...most of whom have a definite preference for permissive licenses.
    In fact, you would probably have few contributors who wouldn't be working on GCC otherwise (though you may have some), so you might end up with a small project, with little adoption, but able to stunt GCC.
    Now, if Apple started closing most of their work, and Intel got some level of paranoia about this, and Google got scared off from LLVM, then you might be able to get somewhere. Short of that, forget about it.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Uh, no. I don't see anyone who forked the OSS code of MySQL having anywhere close to the resource of Oracle available to them. And the reality is that the value of MySQL and most other corporate backed OSS projects is providing enterprise support for the product, which isn't really affected by the license of the software. Having it be OSS is almost certainly to maintain marketshare and utilise crowdsourced bugfixing.
    Several organizations have the resources to take on MySQL and MariaDB as a fork is already very popular. Fedora and openSUSE is switching from MySQL to MariaDB as well as Wikipedia.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Sure, provided that you leave the copyright notices intact and a reference to the original license terms for the code that was originally released under it.


    Last edited by Ray7brian2; 05-09-2013 at 02:30 AM.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scottishduck View Post
    Uh, no. I don't see anyone who forked the OSS code of MySQL having anywhere close to the resource of Oracle available to them.
    Why in the world do you think that matters? All that matters is having enough resources to properly support the product, something that the people behind MariaDB (which includes some of the original MySQL devs) think they can do. And from what i've seen, other organizations seem to think they do to, which is all that matters.

    The value of MySQL is driven largely by the massive use it sees. You can try to get those people to start paying you money, or at the very least you keep mindshare and can help drive people to your more expensive products when they outgrow the cheaper ones. MariaDB is setup to steal much of that marketshare away. We'll see how successful it is, but I don't think it will take that long for it to become a more popular option than MySQL is among the general public. Obviously people who have signed support contracts with Oracle would be the last to switch, but if MySQL ever starts looking like a sinking ship they'll move as well.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    GPL, especially in the 3 version is very restrictive and frankly reduces your freedom significantly.
    How is GPLv3 'very restrictive' and reduces 'your' freedom significantly? GPL exists the protect 'end user' rights, not the rights of companies who wants to create Tivo-style products.

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    There are better ways to do open source these days.
    These days? Permissive licencing has always been an option, it's not something 'new', developers have been choosing between copyleft and permissive for all these years. And they typically choose copyleft style licencing for full solution type software like applications and permissive licencing for smaller building block style code like libraries etc. It's not unusual for developers to licence some of their code under one licence type and some under another.

    Both licence types have pros and cons and it's up to the developer(s) to decide which one suits their project(s).

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    It truly is a damaged concept that needs a bit more rational reimagining.
    How is making sure that the of source code availability and possibility to modify and compile/run the code resulting from that source code 'a damaged concept'? You sure spew a lot of unsubstantiated crap, typical of a licence zelot.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Linuxland
    Posts
    5,055

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post
    The Linux way does some what reduce the dangers of the GPL but there is a really bad side effect to that also. One example being a lone developer screwing with all of your open development efforts. Here I'm thinking about the port of VLC to iOS. It is a sad day when mental health problem out weigh the community working together.
    It's also very sad when your stance on a platform gets your mental health questioned...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •