If there is one technology in the Linux world that ruffles feathers whenever it's mentioned, it's Mono, the open source .Net clone. Since .Net comes out of Microsoft, and has some patents encircling it, it is said to be a legal nightmare. Supposedly, you can obtain a "royalty-free, reasonable and non-discriminatory" license from Microsoft regarding the patents surrounding Mono. iTWire decided to look at just how easy (or hard) it is to get such a license. Turns out it's kind of hard.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2009-05-30
I deal with the Crying my business is stuffed because my program don't work any more.
Closed source in that case is a extrema pain in but. If you wish to make closed source so be the costs. All firms I have is a strict I will not buy a application unless source code is provided for custom software anyhow. So Mysql license does not bother me in the least. The more businesses that do that to you the less you will worry about GPLv3 restriction against closed source.
Member since:2006-12-07
Your English is worse than mine......
My contracts prevents customers to distribute my code, but they do receive it, and are allowed to modify it. That's practical matter, does not have anything with Open Source as a philosophy. Simply, if something happens to me, customer can find someone else to modify the application.
I don't feel that I have to justify what I do for anybody, but, for the sake of discussion, I will explain some points.
My contracts conflict with GPL in redistribution part. I don't allow redistribution of my code, because I want to sell the same, or slightly modified code over and over again. In the same time, I don't want any of my competition to use my code in their products. That is very simple and meaningful concept, but GPL conflicts with it.
Member since:
2006-12-07
Free software might be a minefield, too. For example. database drivers for MySQL, version 3 and higher, are under GPL. MySQL people decline to interpret the license, and also decline to come clear are they willing to go after people who write non-GPL applications that work with version of MySQL server that is downloaded for free. Instead, they recommend to buy MySQL and be safe.
I write software for living, and placing any part of my code under GPL is strictly not an option. I find difficult to explain customers why they need to buy something they already downloaded for free.
The final outcome is that I have never sold any application that works with MySQL database. For customers that have not chosen database engine yet, I always advise against MySQL, to avoid problems.
My engine of choice is PostgreSQL, but I also find MS SQL much more developer friendly than MySQL, because license situation is clear, customers know that they need to pay, and, second, there is a developer version for free.