>>>>> "Orlando" == Orlando Andico <orly@stripped> writes:
Orlando> On Tue, 31 Aug 1999 ed@stripped wrote:
>> > Maybe 3.20.22 will be released in the next Red Hat release (since it's
>> > been GPLed). The current version is not under the GPL so Red Hat won't
>> > include it in their distribution.
>> but they can distribute netscape? ... i think you are wrong on this one...
Orlando> The NPL does not preclude sales. But you're right. I think it has to do
Orlando> with the fact that MySQL specifically cannot be redistributed except at
Orlando> cost. RedHat charges > cost of media so they can't add it.
This is WRONG!
MySQL can be redistributed even if the CD costs something! The point
with the MySQL license is more that you (as a seller) is not allowed
to say to the customer that he can't take a copy of the CD and sell
This is not a problem with Redhat, as the RedHat CD is reproducible!
To make it perfectly clear: The MySQL license allows RedHat to put
MySQL on the CD and still charge for it! They didn't do it because
they didn't like to have many different licenses on the CD as this may
confuse the customers. What they didn't want to acknowledge is that
one can't have the same license model for client/server applications as
for a simple applications or a libraries and expect it to work the
On can also claim that the MySQL license is 'too free' for RedHat as
it doesn't allow anyone to restrict the usage of a copy of the RedHat CD!
(Which actually should be something that users of 'free software'
should really like)