![](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/769f0fd707751e8755eb9b5dd837ab63.jpg?s=120&d=mm&r=g)
On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 2:15 AM, Arjen Lentz
On 07/10/2009, at 12:34 AM, Michael Widenius wrote:
I still think it's quite long and not much easier to understand that what we have now:
In that case you might as well just keep it all GPL or BSD and sell it rather than dual licensing?
MariaDB is GPL and we can't do dual licensing in that sense.
Then the recipient has all the normal GPL or BSD rights and obligations that apply to the rest of the code anyway, without need for extra licensing texts.
Actually, the text being discussed here imposes no requirements on the contributor, it is something that Monty Program gives away. The fact that nobody (and I do mean nobody, it's not about you) except me has understood what Monty wants to do, indicates that the text is not clear.
Dual would only make sense for discrete/distinct components, but even there it might be easier to just have it be GPL or BSD. People come back to the original company for expertise/customisation anyway, as they're the experts. As long as the service is good.
Pooling copyrights is not primarily done to have any benefit for MP, it is done so we could potentially give code back to Sun (to benefit MySQL customers, and Sun of course) or to make sure we can stay license compatible with MySQL (to benefit MariaDB and its users). And yes, this is something we must do, so there is no point in discussing the pooling of copyrights as such. Just to repeat what Mark said, contributing as BSD seems to be the most popular way, and MP has no problem with that. henrik -- email: henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi tel: +358-40-5697354 www: www.avoinelama.fi/~hingo book: www.openlife.cc