[MUD-Dev] GPL (was:Libs for 3D Client/Servers)
jbmud at cbasoftware.com
Tue Jul 10 14:22:22 New Zealand Standard Time 2001
Patrick Dughi <dughi at imaxx.net> wrote:
> It's not that you can't make money from an opensource product,
> just that you can't make money from the mere existance of an open
> source product....welll... easily at least.
I'm certainly not saying that what Redhat is doing is wrong in any
way. The GPL explicity gives them the right to do so and developers
are free to do whatever they want.
I just wanted to point out that you can't compare a development
company (as in developing a GPL'd mud-suite) to redhat since it's
totally different things. Like you said, Redhat don't live on
developing software primary, they live on taking the software that
exists and build a strong trademark around it.
You, the developer let go off all your intellectual property rights
(thats the whole point with the GPL). Redhat and other big companies
still has IP rights (like trademarks). You play by different rules
so to speak.
> Actually, again, redhat claims their database IS posgres.
> *Sigh* ... I have such problems not responding to what appears to
> be out-and-out trolling....
> In anycase, assuming there are no legal issues such as a company
> taking over your product, you have to remember that you are not
> selling just the code.
Great bridge is not to happy about it since they are the ones that
has invested lots of $$$ in making the software and Redhat may be
the ones taking most of the revenue (they think atleast, i guess we
will have to wait and see).
Again, Redhat is not doing anything wrong, they are entitled to
because postgresql is under the GPL. The people who work at Great
Bridge is grown up people so they should have thought about this
scenario when they put the code under the GPL..
MUD-Dev mailing list
MUD-Dev at kanga.nu
More information about the MUD-Dev