Claudio Valderrama C. wrote:

>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com
>> [mailto:Firebird-general@yahoogroups.com]On Behalf Of marius popa
>> Sent: Miercoles, 10 de Mayo de 2006 6:35
>>
>> New parts of firebird could be released with an better open source license
>> in the future :
>>
>> like mozilla finished their relicensing task
>> http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/relicensing-faq.html
>
> It's a waste of efforts and a legal problem. First, we can't change the
> license Borland gave us. The IDPL/MPL is compatible with their original IPL.
> IDPL stands for Initial Developer. Second, since the legacy code uses a MPL
> derivative, you can't put the rest of the code under GPL or LGPL. How are
> you going to compile and link both places to create a single executable
> without violating the FSF licenses?
>
>
>> like jaybird is released under LGPL
>>
>> http://jaybirdwiki.firebirdsql.org/jaybird/doku.php?id=info:licensing
>
> You miss the point. Jaybird is original code that started from scratch. It
> didn't inherit from the InterClient code. I think I'm not the only one who
> thinks Borland copied Jaybird code violating our license, because their new
> driver, when it appeared, had "strangely" the same bugs as Jaybird. Since
> Jaybird and FlameRobin are new code, Roman and Milan are able to put
> whatever license they want on it.
>
> If we want to start with a new license, we should rewrite everything from
> Borland that is still in use.
>
> C.
>

With multi-license (and with GPL also AFAIK) there are some
problems.Someone could for example take 'product' source code,polish
,add a new feature ,tool and sell all together *without* source code (or
with source code only for registered buyers) as a better 'product'.
I consider this to be "not fair", however legally it's all fine.
I think current license prohibit such usage (Am I right?) which is good.


Just my 2 modest cents.


Regards
Boguslaw