MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3 311
munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"
This makes no sense (Score:4, Insightful)
How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:5, Insightful)
that is what they did.
We're going to have to do this with Adium as well (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree with this in either case. v3 is about pushing an agenda within a license from what I can tell, rather than sticking to what it is, a license. It's their license, fine, but pushing their own goals through it makes it even more restrictive to use the GPL than it already is. It's frustrating.
Re:Hoopla! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Jumping the Shark (Score:2, Insightful)
Forking a project is a weapon-of-last-resort. MySQL has never said that they won't use GPLv3, they just want to see the bloody thing first and decide for themselves.
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:4, Insightful)
Because GPLv1 is more restrictive than v2. GPLv1 seems to imply that you cannot sell the code, but v2 clears up this misunderstanding. The 'or later' is attached to most GPL code because the standard license notification template attached to license says that the program may be distributed under the 'General Public License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version.'
Of course, this move does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from making a change to a version already licensed with the old wording from distributing MySQL under GPL v3 terms. Those versions already released have 'GPLv2 or later' moniker already attached and you can't change that now.
Re:Thank You Speghetti Monster! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Uhm. And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Freedom is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
Unless someone makes a specially modified MySQL for a closed device (TiVo?), redistributes the source code with the modifications but under the same license ("...GPLv2 or any later version"), and then you leverage that you have accepted the software under any later version (GPLv3 specifically) to legally force the manufacturer to release encryption keys and free up any patents he owns.
Yes, some companies may prefer to use MySQL or MySQL-embedded as GPL software and release the code, working on a service model for some embedded device; rather than paying for a commercial license. Look at Linksys and their Linux firmware, "Download GPL code here." They COULD have used BSD or Minix!
Re:Freedom is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it can. If you grant me the right to redistribute a derivative work from something you've written under GPLv2 or later, and GPLv3 says I can sell a work without providing any source whatsoever, you can't stop me from taking your work and releasing a closed source product using your source. I don't think "however it's written" means what you think it means. Even if you firmly believe that GPLv3 will do no such thing, can you be sure that GPLv10 won't? It's foolish to agree to license something under a license that hasn't been written and will be written by someone you don't know.
what does GPL3 make worse ? (Score:3, Insightful)
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying to keep up with teh evil(tm).
honestly, which responsible developer of GPLed software could like "tivoisation" ? if you program a software that is for everyone free to modify and some company uses it on their devices (that is like
or the novell-m$ contract: with GPLv3 that would be explicitly outlawed. and no one except novell, m$ and their customers could want such a contract - i am not even sure if their customers could want it.
after that, what is your problem with GPLv3 ?
they are just changing the wording, not the intent.
A little late ! (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the danger of GPL subversion, it is clear and present: RMS could and would insert "As oversight authority, the FSF is party to this licence and may sue for enforcment" [@11 ur baze b3l0ng 2me]
It gives FSF a blank check, not a good idea ... (Score:5, Insightful)
No, it gives the FSF a blank check, blank checks are not a good idea. You are *assuming* that future versions of the GPL uphold the rights you currently support and avoids overly restrictive requirements you do not support. You have no such guarantee with the "or later" wording, and you have little negotiating room when future licenses are developed. Basically if you only use a specific license you have bargaining power, you have rights.
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not sure you can change your license from "v2 or later" to "v2 only" without permission. If you accepted contributions to a project under a "v2 or later" license, then your contributors were placing their code under *that* license, and a change to a "v2 only" license would constitute releasing contributors' code under a license they didn't approve.
MySQL AB doesn't have the same issue because they own the copyright on all of their code (i.e. they don't accept contributions unless the copyright is assigned to them). They do that so that they can dual-license their code, but it has the effect of allowing them to change their licensing terms at will.
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:3, Insightful)
You trust the FSF to make changes carefully
Re:Uhm. And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Removing "or later" protects author's rights ... (Score:3, Insightful)
Removing "or later" protects an author's rights, it makes sure that the terms of the license matches their goals, the goals GPL v2 embodied. "Or later" is a blank check, author's have no guarantee that the license will not go in an undesirable direction and embrace ideas they do not support. Removing "or later" also provides balance, it gives some negotiating power to author's when it comes time to develop that new version of the license.
Re:Good for them. (Score:2, Insightful)
GPLv3 says:
* don't do this
* don't do that
* mustn't do foo
Sure sounds like freedom. (sarcasm)
GPLv2 has restrictive bits in it, but developers have decided that those bits are worth it.
This may be the case also with GPLv3. But a switch from GPLv2 to GPLv3 would see more restrictions
applied to a project.
eg.
Lets say GPLv2 has 5 restrictions. Let's say GPLv3 has 10.
A switch from v2 to v3 incurs a gain of 5 restrictions to the project. Essentially
the project becomes more restrictive than what it has been in the past.
This has the effect of reducing freedoms.
- 51acf00e7b6e2977807a371f24007eb39a863e7f
Better 'rigid' than screwed (Score:3, Insightful)
How many times will the community be screwed by license chicanery before before you wise up: Tivo, Open Group X, XFree86/Xorg debocle, GIF, the Java Trap, Bitkeeper... Early GPL versions obviously assumed too much about reasonable community behavior. GPL v3 simply makes an attempt to spell things out more completely.
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:4, Insightful)
Once you have that situation, the release under v3 does not 'trump' or efface the release under v2; it is just an additional license possibility.
In the case we're discussing, anybody who picks up the code to reuse it can choose to either release the result under "v2 only" or under "v2 or later". In the the first case, they're picking up the "v2" option of the initial package. Remember, the initial package is still out there in the ether, available under v2, v3, v4,
Note that this reading relies heavily on the use of the word OR in "... or later". It provides the choice to the person receiving the code as to which license they'll accept. If the original stipulation said "v2 AND any later version", we'd be in the sort of "v3 trumps v2" situation everyone seems to be worrying about - but if these issues ever came to trial, I seriously doubt any judge would accept as valid a release under a license that did not yet exist at the time the license was granted. (IANAL).
Re:It gives FSF a blank check, not a good idea ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:5, Insightful)
Next, assume that project Z is fairly complex, and becomes popular, and receives contributions from numerous developers, not all of whom stick with the project.
Now, when the new GPL comes along, you have a potential problem: do all the contributors to the project need to approve a license change? Including all the ones you can no longer get in touch with? This is where the clause comes in handy: by submitting code under GPL2, they already [i]have[/i] approved a license change to GPL3, so you don't need their permission.
'Course, that can be avoided if you simply make all contributors hand over copyright of their contributions to those managing the project, or otherwise get their agreement ahead of time to make certain licensing changes in the future.
And then from a user's perspective: this clause increases what users can do with the program, it doesn't restrict users' choices. People can continue to treat the program as GPL2 licensed for as long as it's licensed that way, or they can treat it as GPL3 if there's some clause in GPL3 they find favorable. The only way it's potentially restrictive is that it allows derivative works to choose GPL3, which then prevents users of the derivative version from going back to GPL2.
Agreeing to terms that aren't yet defined is a bit odd - it's basically just a bit of faith in the FSF that makes that work, that whatever they do with the future versions of the GPL will be for the best. But what's happening now is people aren't sure that's the case.
Oxymoronic (Score:4, Insightful)
FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.
Doesn't this specificaly prevent them from using GPLv3 as an option in the future? I mean only means only right.
Re:Freedom is scary (Score:3, Insightful)
In any event, anyone releasing software under the GPL whose primary concern isn't with the Public's right to use their software and any future revisions thereof is probably missing the point of the license.
Re: Agendas (Score:3, Insightful)
It is abuse. It is until they give me, the person who purchased their hardware the ability to change what software it runs. It's my hardware. They don't own it any longer. They should have no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't run on it. None at all.
Do you think any airline in their right mind would buy an airplane that they were told they couldn't take apart or fix the software of? What happens when the airplane manufacturer goes out of business?
Sure, hardware keys are darned useful for security, and I think they ought to be allowed. But not letting me change them when I own the device is tantamount to stealing the device back from me after I purchased it. It's my piece of hardware darn it. If you don't want to sell it to me, don't. But don't sell it to me then tell me it really isn't mind afterwards.
Re:Jumping the Shark - now is the moment. (Score:1, Insightful)
No; we all know what the free software foundation stands for [gnu.org]. There has never been any hint that they would in any way interfere with the freedom of software users. Nobody has ever sustained such an allegation against them. That they may interfere with the freedom of software developers, where that is opposition to the freedom of users is a known and clear fact. We know that the primary objection to the GPLv3 is that some developers want to be able to develop restrictive software which makes it difficult to copy information.
The clear reason MySQL would make this change is because they intend to interfere with my freedom. Making a Fork now and committing it to switch purely to the GPLv3 if they switch to a purely to the GPLv2 is an important strategic move; if we wait until after the GPLv3 is completed, the version we release will be far behind in bug fixes. The point to do it is now.
Please don't claim MySQL is committed to software freedom or even to Linux. We've already had clear evidence that they are not when they chose to work with SCO at exactly the time when that could only do harm [groklaw.net]. MySQL is not a company to trust.
Re:FSF or You (Score:3, Insightful)
You wrote the software, you contributed your time and effort to it and that will be forever appreciated. But if I take some unsupported code (Unsupported in terms of if it doesnt work, then I have no way of getting you to fix it in a reasonable timeframe) and turn it into a working, supported product why should I not be able to then protect my work from plagurism. Why should I be limited to giving my product away for free as well?
Anyone who has had to work in the software development field professionally will probably agree that writing a product is the easy bit (and fun too). The shit bit is having to help users who think the manual is something YOU should read then tell them what is says. But these people do exist and are quite frequently able to throw money at other people so they never even look at a manual.
The reality is that open source software would still be a hobbiest only affair without the freedom that the GPLv2 grants to make professional, user friendly products and then protect that product from being ripped off by a competitor who can produce it cheaper as you have done all the polishing.