tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10943611.post113978649502879987..comments2024-03-16T02:07:45.896+02:00Comments on Gr33n Data: Locking the Open SourceAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04040899001187322598noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10943611.post-1139867916712874432006-02-13T23:58:00.000+02:002006-02-13T23:58:00.000+02:00That's great, this may be one of the reasons that ...That's great, this may be one of the reasons that I like seeing your comments here, very informativeAnonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04040899001187322598noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10943611.post-1139797954546277852006-02-13T04:32:00.000+02:002006-02-13T04:32:00.000+02:00not really, people will just fork and move on.also...not really, people will just fork and move on.<BR/><BR/>also license changes requires the agreement of all copyright holders, which in some projects means every single contributor, in other projects means a single person, or a single company and in some other projects means a non profit foundation.<BR/><BR/>GNU, apache and mozilla are owned by foundations, they almost cannot sell their code. Linux is owned by hundreds of thousands, getting them all to agree is too big a task.<BR/><BR/>mysql and QT are owned by companies, they can be bought but as I said the community will still have the right to the source code, they'll just have no access to future improvements made by the new owner, but then the community will fork the project, continue developing it and no one will feel it (this actually happened with XFree86, in a couple of months people moved to Xorg without any major problems).<BR/><BR/>also if the software relies on GPLd libraries it will have to remain GPLdAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com