[Mono-devel-list] ByteFX development

[Reggie Burnett]

> <snip/>
> > Obviously, the ByteFX code that was released as LGPL can be
maintained
> > further by someone however I think there are several reasons why
this
> > shouldn't happen.
> >
> > 1.  As I am now the .NET face for MySQL and the maintainer of MySQL
> > Connector/Net, I am in a position to maintain excellent
compatibility
> > between the connector and the database.
> 
> I don't believe this was ever in question

I don't think the point here should be overlooked. As the database
becomes more complex, so will the provider.  Maintaining a separate
provider when one already exists requires a good argument.


> > a set of products that you will now use to make you money is just
not
> > the way to handle yourself.  If your commercial product does not
make
> > enough money to cover this (very low) license fee, I might suggest
that
> > you rethink either the product or the entire endeavor.
> 
> And this is where the issue pops up.  The Mono class libraries are
> MIT/X11.  The runtime libraries are LGPL.  Gnome's libraries are LGPL.

<snip/>

None of this changes the fact that this is only an issue for someone who
wants to write a proprietary app without paying the associated licensing
fees.  It's my understanding that the exception allows you to write
almost any kind of open source app you want while using the GPL
connector.  It's only when you are building a proprietary app that the
license fee comes in.  With very few exceptions, people who write
closed-source proprietary apps are either currently selling or planning
to sell their software.

Allowing someone to write proprietary apps using your code without
charging them a fee is an excellent technique to increase the ubiquity
of your code (that's why I chose LGPL for ByteFX), however this is
possible only if the contributors all have day jobs or you eventually
sell other products or services for a fee.

The GPL should be updated, that is for sure.  Also, I simply don't
believe that an argument can be made that a dev owes licensing fees on a
product when you didn't link against it.  If this were the case, then I
might owe licensing fees on a database product (that I accessed only
with System.Data) developed after mine, a product I had no knowledge of.
This surely can't be.

-reggie