| |||||||||||||
A licensing change for syslog-ngA licensing change for syslog-ngPosted Aug 31, 2010 21:53 UTC (Tue) by flewellyn (subscriber, #5047)Parent article: A licensing change for syslog-ng
This would have been a great move for them back in 2007 or so. Seems a bit late now, though.
(Log in to post comments)
A licensing change for syslog-ng Posted Sep 1, 2010 8:32 UTC (Wed) by bazsi (subscriber, #63084) [Link]
Being the default in Linux distributions may not be the only, ultimate goal. I agree that it is probably too late for Fedora or Debian to change back.
But lots of people are currently running syslog-ng, and others are installing them from source/distribution packages, yet others are including syslog-ng in their products.
And for them this license change may be reassuring.
Being late is always better than never in my opinion, and doing the right thing with regards to making a living from free software is not an easy ride. Getting it wrong and learning from the mistakes is at least as important as doing it right from the beginning.
A licensing change for syslog-ng Posted Sep 1, 2010 10:01 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946) [Link]
A step in the right direction but still fails short IMO. The question that needs to be answered explicitly is what your approach is going to be if someone submits a open source patch that implements the functionality of a proprietary plugin you are making money out of. The friction or high possibility of that is a important factor in Fedora picking rsyslog over syslog-ng.
A licensing change for syslog-ng Posted Sep 1, 2010 11:56 UTC (Wed) by bazsi (subscriber, #63084) [Link]
This was answered previously in my blog post here:
http://bazsi.blogs.balabit.com/2010/08/syslog_ng_and_open...
Quote: "once a feature is in the scope of syslog-ng (and being a feature in the commercial edition certainly proves that point) and a working implementation is contributed on the syslog-ng mailing list, then I hereby state that we are willing to include it in the main syslog-ng distribution."
But please read the complete post for more details.
A licensing change for syslog-ng Posted Sep 10, 2010 20:59 UTC (Fri) by topher (guest, #2223) [Link]
I've been using syslog-ng heavily since 2003, and I'm still using it heavily now. While this would have been great to see in 2007, I think it's great to see now, too.
There's a lot of us who are using syslog-ng, and who will continue to use it. Things like this just validate our decision.
(I've used rsyslog, and there's a lot to like there. However, it's configuration syntax seriously sucks, and until that gets fixed, it has no chance as a syslog-ng replacement for me.)
|
|||||||||||||