| |||||||||||||
A licensing change for syslog-ngA licensing change for syslog-ngPosted Sep 1, 2010 10:01 UTC (Wed) by rahulsundaram (subscriber, #21946)In reply to: A licensing change for syslog-ng by bazsi Parent article: A licensing change for syslog-ng
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.
(Log in to post comments)
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.
|
|||||||||||||