db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2005 04:28:51 GMT
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 15:19, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Sigh.
> Dan, you really need to pay more attention to what was written.
> With respect to GPL I never talked about end users.
> Just those who license their code under GPL.
> GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license as 
> well.

I think I finally see what you are getting at, I have a hard time
understanding your posts as you seem to avoid saying things clearly,
instead preferring to imply things.

I was put off track by your statement above:

"GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license
as well."

Since you never specified earlier you were only talking about the
copyright holder, I assumed 'a company' meany any company, and since you
introduced this topic in what seemed to be an ASL/GPL post I assumed
your were talking about re-distributing.

But if you are talking about the copyright holder, then your statement
taken by itself is misleading, at least it mislead me. (Because the GPL
is not the mechanism that allows the copyright holder to use other
licences, e.g. I could replace GPL with ASL in that exact sentence and
it makes the same amount of sense).

I think what you are trying to say is:

- By releasing the software under the GPL, its redistribution by others
is limited to the GPL, thus the copyright holder has the potential
advantage of using other licences.

I agree that is technically correct. But this mailing list is not the
place to discuss the pros and cons of GPL and ASL.

> Hypothetical situation. You figure out a way to efficiently handle SQL 
> Optimization that really reduces overhead. There is nothing for stopping IBM 
> or Oracle to come in and steal your IP and use it in their products, once you 
> put it in the public eye under Apache.

Well, at least IBM's not a problem for me, since my IP is IBM's IP. :-)
But I'm not sure either way what you say is 100% correct, but since
neither you or I are a lawyer there's no point continuing the discussion.

> The wild thing is that IBM was short sighted when they released Derby under 
> Apache.

That of course, is only your opinion. I don't see it that way.


View raw message