[X2go-dev] [Pkg-x2go-devel] Getting things started with x2goclient

[John A. Sullivan III]

On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 13:55 -0500, Gerry Reno wrote:
> On 02/01/2011 01:45 PM, John A. Sullivan III wrote:
> > On Tue, 2011-02-01 at 12:28 -0500, Gerry Reno wrote:
> >   
> >> On 02/01/2011 08:22 AM, Mike Gabriel wrote:
> >> <snip>However, since 3.4 is reported to be the last
> >>     
> >>>> GPL'ed version of these libraries, from now on, the community needs to
> >>>> do this upstream work independently from the actual upstream:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.nomachine.com/news-read.php?idnews=331
> >>>>         
> >>
> >>
> >> Unless NoMachine completely rewrote the NX libs from scratch they cannot
> >> change the license nor can they fail to provide any updates made to that
> >> code base.  Once the GPL license is on a code base ALL derivatives that
> >> are distributed in any manner are covered under the GPL no matter who
> >> makes them.
> >>
> >>     
> > <snip>
> > I'm not sure if that's true if they also own all the copyrights or at
> > least unlimited rights to all submitted code.  Then they can simply
> > issue the entire code body under a different license.  At least that's
> > the way I think it works and why some organizations are quite adamant
> > about having full rights to all submissions even if they do not own the
> > copyright - John
> >
> >   
> 
> And that is exactly what some "commercial" open source companies are
> using to actually benefit (exploit) open source and then after the
> project is so far along then they adopt a closed license and screw the
> open source community.
> 
<snip>
Indeed, that's why we're pretty careful about which Open Source projects
we use and support.  Although some do seem to use it responsibly just in
order to avoid the impossibility of tracking down all contributors for a
large code base.  If I recall correctly, both Apache and Samba take this
approach.  It's certainly one of the reasons we were delighted to find
X2Go and support it wholeheartedly - John