Comments on: O’Gara Cloud Computing Article Off Base http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/ the art of sql Thu, 09 Sep 2010 03:38:00 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: zeke http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215383 zeke Thu, 18 Mar 2010 04:06:34 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215383 A whore is a whore because of her actions, not because its an honorific title bestowed willy nilly.<br><br>We all know who and what MoG is about and everything she writes should be viewed with full knowledge of her past misdeeds, lies and sleaze. A whore is a whore because of her actions, not because its an honorific title bestowed willy nilly.

We all know who and what MoG is about and everything she writes should be viewed with full knowledge of her past misdeeds, lies and sleaze.

]]> By: zeke http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215674 zeke Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:06:00 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215674 A whore is a whore because of her actions, not because its an honorific title bestowed willy nilly. We all know who and what MoG is about and everything she writes should be viewed with full knowledge of her past misdeeds, lies and sleaze. A whore is a whore because of her actions, not because its an honorific title bestowed willy nilly.

We all know who and what MoG is about and everything she writes should be viewed with full knowledge of her past misdeeds, lies and sleaze.

]]> By: More Evidence of Potential Microsoft Involvement in Apple-HTC Lawsuit Against Linux/Android (and Microsoft Loses to Virnetx) | Boycott Novell http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215381 More Evidence of Potential Microsoft Involvement in Apple-HTC Lawsuit Against Linux/Android (and Microsoft Loses to Virnetx) | Boycott Novell Wed, 17 Mar 2010 21:17:55 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215381 [...] Speaking of SCO, a few days ago it turned out that SCO itself was behind the attacks on Groklaw. SCO was using Sys-Con as its attack dog and Sys-Con is now spreading lies about an important Free software project, leading to this reaction: [...] [...] Speaking of SCO, a few days ago it turned out that SCO itself was behind the attacks on Groklaw. SCO was using Sys-Con as its attack dog and Sys-Con is now spreading lies about an important Free software project, leading to this reaction: [...]

]]> By: Jay Pipes http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215379 Jay Pipes Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:04:12 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215379 That's precisely what they bought, and the reason why there was such a big todo about the acquisition in the MySQL blogosphere over the past year... That's precisely what they bought, and the reason why there was such a big todo about the acquisition in the MySQL blogosphere over the past year…

]]> By: Steven http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215378 Steven Tue, 16 Mar 2010 16:49:38 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215378 I always thought the GPL allowed licensees to re-sell the software, provided that those resellers abided by the terms of the GPL, including providing copies of the source code to third parties to whom they sold their derived work. The difference between the copyright holder and a GPL licensee is not the ability to sell the software; it's the ability to sell the software while not providing copies of the source code to third parties. For example, if Oracle owns the copyright to MySQL, it could fork MySQL under a different, perhaps non-open-source license.<br><br>I am curious what Oracle actually bought when it acquired MySQL. Did it get copyright ownership of the MySQL base, and the ability to therefore redistribute that code under different license terms? If so, I bet there are a lot of MySQL contributors who would be fairly unhappy if Oracle actually did that. I always thought the GPL allowed licensees to re-sell the software, provided that those resellers abided by the terms of the GPL, including providing copies of the source code to third parties to whom they sold their derived work. The difference between the copyright holder and a GPL licensee is not the ability to sell the software; it's the ability to sell the software while not providing copies of the source code to third parties. For example, if Oracle owns the copyright to MySQL, it could fork MySQL under a different, perhaps non-open-source license.

I am curious what Oracle actually bought when it acquired MySQL. Did it get copyright ownership of the MySQL base, and the ability to therefore redistribute that code under different license terms? If so, I bet there are a lot of MySQL contributors who would be fairly unhappy if Oracle actually did that.

]]> By: LenZ http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215375 LenZ Mon, 15 Mar 2010 18:31:30 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215375 Hi Jay! Thanks for refuting this article. However, I have one question/comment on your statements above:<br><br>"Developers who contribute code to Drizzle do so under the GPLv2 if that contribution is in the Drizzle kernel. If the code contribution is a plugin, the contributor is free to pick whatever license they choose."<br><br>How does that work? According to this GPL FAQ, the plugins should be licensed under the GPL as well, shouldn't they?<br><br><a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins" rel="nofollow">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAnd...</a><br><br>[SNIP]<br>If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?<br><br>It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.<br><br>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.<br><br>If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.<br>[SNIP] Hi Jay! Thanks for refuting this article. However, I have one question/comment on your statements above:

“Developers who contribute code to Drizzle do so under the GPLv2 if that contribution is in the Drizzle kernel. If the code contribution is a plugin, the contributor is free to pick whatever license they choose.”

How does that work? According to this GPL FAQ, the plugins should be licensed under the GPL as well, shouldn't they?

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAnd...

[SNIP]
If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in?

It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.
[SNIP]

]]> By: LinuxJedi http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215369 LinuxJedi Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:52:48 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215369 There are lots you could have said here. From what I read in the past Maureen is not a very well loved person in the industry. I'm glad you took the moral high ground, Jay :)<br><br>All the best at Rackspace, a great company to work for. There are lots you could have said here. From what I read in the past Maureen is not a very well loved person in the industry. I'm glad you took the moral high ground, Jay :)

All the best at Rackspace, a great company to work for.

]]> By: Jay Pipes http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215368 Jay Pipes Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:59:42 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215368 I don't like to be mean or rude to anyone. I just want facts to be propogated, and citations to be made where appropriate. :)<br><br>Cheers!<br><br>Jay I don't like to be mean or rude to anyone. I just want facts to be propogated, and citations to be made where appropriate. :)

Cheers!

Jay

]]> By: OoO http://www.joinfu.com/2010/03/cloud-computing-article-off-bas/comment-page-1/#comment-215367 OoO Mon, 15 Mar 2010 01:52:10 +0000 http://www.joinfu.com/?p=347#comment-215367 There's no reason to be nice to MoG. She's the same hitwoman who wrote a bunch of pro SCO, anti GPL FUD during that whole trial (while being paid by them, while claiming to be impartial), including publishing a bunch of personal info about the previously anonymous blogger behind Groklaw.<br><br>Looking forward to Drizzle! There's no reason to be nice to MoG. She's the same hitwoman who wrote a bunch of pro SCO, anti GPL FUD during that whole trial (while being paid by them, while claiming to be impartial), including publishing a bunch of personal info about the previously anonymous blogger behind Groklaw.

Looking forward to Drizzle!

]]>