Post by Jan-Erik Soderholm
A thought... If VSI puts time and money into testing/verifying OSS
kits for VMS, would it be reasonable that it is also required to
have a support agreement to get access to those kits for VMS?
I don't use Ruby, but two minutes of reading appears to show that Ruby
seems to have a dual licence so that doesn't apply to the following.
However, in the case of any products licenced under the GPL, all VSI can
control is the initial distribution and VSI are also required to make
any changes to the GPL source code available on request.
This is very reasonable IMHO, because VSI didn't write the GPL product
in the first place and they are seeing a benefit from it being available
VSI could take the Adacore approach of only making the initial
distribution available to paying customers, but they cannot then stop
any pure GPL code from then being distributed by those same customers.
The situation is comparable to RHEL and CentOS/Scientific Linux.
Red Hat didn't write the operating system and it's applications but
they are still receiving a financial benefit from packaging RHEL.
Therefore it is only fair that CentOS and Scientific Linux can use
Red Hat's packaging work to create a freely available CentOS and
Scientific Linux distribution.
Simon Clubley, ***@remove_me.eisner.decus.org-Earth.UFP
Microsoft: Bringing you 1980s technology to a 21st century world