Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software?

Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.

Stallman's quote:

This approach was able to provide (1) an attractive platform for developers looking to use FLOSS, and secured MySQL enormous mind share, particularly in supporting content rich web pages and other Internet applications, and (2) the ability for paying clientèle to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL. With excellent management and considerable trust within the user community, MySQL became the gold standard for web based FLOSS database applications.

Ghostview used to have (and may still have) a dual-licensing setup -- the most up-to-date version of Ghostview was under a non-free license that could be purchased by companies that wanted Acrobat support on platforms Adobe wasn't interested in supporting, and the older versions of Ghostview were released under the GPL. I remember RMS commenting on this at the time, and his comment was "I'd rather it be all GPL, but if that's what the creator needs to do in order to support his work so be it."

Perhaps I misunderstand the article, but I don't see this as a new position or a deviation on RMS' part. I also personally disagree that it's "anti Open Source" -- first, on a pedantic level, RMS would say that the issue had nothing to do with "Open Source," rather it was about "Free Software." ;-) Second, and probably a lot more relevant, if software is licensed under the GPL, then it's licensed under the GPL. You're free to hack on it, distribute it, improve it, modify it, as much as you wish under that license, and any new work you add to that software under that license stays under that license as well. So what exactly are you losing?

Some of us would like to be able to support our development of Free Software directly through the software. Many of us support ourselves in other ways and don't care about this. But for those who want to get the support from the software, dual-licensing is a good way to do it.

It satisfies the folks who don't like the GPL, because it gives them a different set of rights in exchange for some cash. Both the contributions by other developers who follow the GPL and cash are ways of providing a quid-pro-quo for the original developer.

What it doesn't satisfy is the folks who want a free ride instead of Free Software, because you have to pay for a commercial license. And IMO that strikes a good balance.

Even RMS sees this. I think Brian's accusing him of being too moderate. :-)

Bruce

The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do. Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.

Er, have you actually read the GPL? From section 9 (GPLv3):

"You are not required to accept this License in order to receive or run a copy of the Program."

RMS is an ideologue of the best kind

Fixed that for you.

To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.

Huh? By that definition the same thing could be said about Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, or any person involved in politics that was considered "radical" where they really don't even believe in their own ideas.

I mean seriously... Say what you will about RMS ideas and disagree with them if you don't like them, but to say he only does the FSF and GPL for the ladies and money is retarded at best.

I mean if he's got an agenda what is is for? To get attention from forum nerds? The lulz?

But, but I though RMS was an insane rambling ideologue who wants all software developers to be homeless? /s

Flamebait? Trolling? Maybe, but what I'd like to point out is that some people come to hate the person from a single statement attributed to them at some point (regardless of whether they actually said it, or it was taken out of context, etc) that anything they say is automatically hated as well. This is no better than the opposite, worshiping someone such that anything they say is loved without considering the merits. I just wish people would pay attention to why they feel the way they do, rather than just associating the emotion with a person and leaving it at that.

Audience member: [...] in this new World, and you're talking about GPL going over to the next version, how do you see proprietary software businesses making a profit?

Richard Stallman: That's unethical, they shouldn't be making any money. I hope to see all proprietary software wiped out. That's what I aim for. That would be a World in which our freedom is respected. A proprietary program is a program that is not free. That is to say, a program that does respect the user's essential rights. That's evil. A proprietary program is part of a predatory scheme where people who don't value their freedom are drawn into giving it up in order to gain some kind of practical convenience. And then once they're there, it's harder and harder to get out. Our goal is to rescue people from this.

So, I'm an unethical evil person because I make money writing proprietary software. However, it's a requirement that MySQL be sold to a different big evil corporation that doesn't already have a database offering and that can make money off it, else they might not support it.

Sorry, my brain isn't big enough to hold the cognitive dissonance that is Stallman -- he gives me a headache.

umm...RMS doesn't advocate Open Source. RMS advocates Free Software

Proprietary != commercial, especially in Stallman's head. He was asked, specifically, about proprietary software, and yes he believes it's unethical. In the same way that a vegetarian might deem a butcher unethical. This is by no means the same thing as a statement that no software developers should make money at it.

Although many small companies claim to have made money from an Open Source based business, there is no evidence that they actually have because they haven't published their financial information. We have actual evidence that only two companies have made money from an Open Source based business, MySQL, and Red Hat. Thus, MySQL accounts for 50% of the profitable companies that we have proof for.

Yes, but I don't think that RMS in his letter actually wanted to promote dual licensing.

The letter states his opinion on a very specific issue: the acquisition of Sun by Oracle. RMS thinks this is bad for MySQL and one of the reasons is that a source of funding, namely dual licensing, that used to be re-invested in the development of MySQL will probably stop being used that way. The point is that, if Oracle holds the copyright, sells licences, but doesn't give back to the community in terms of development of the GPL version, this will be worse than the current situation. RMS prefers that MySQL stays away from Oracle, this doesn't mean that he likes dual licensing (after all, none of the GNU software is dual licenced).

The letter was sent to the European Commission in support of blocking the acquisition. It's not the usual RMS speech.

It's the seeming paradox of the free market at work. To prevent fraud and allow competition, companies have to be transparent. This is required because without adequate information, deception can easily occur. Fraudsters want a black box to hide their deception. Non-fraudsters want a black box to effectively lock out competitors, giving them a monopolistic position. The GPL is an anti-black box, by allowing people to understand how the software works to know whether it's worth the money spent. If copyright were to be dissolved, this black box phenomenon would likely get worse. Regulation would invariably be necessary, just as more regulation is necessary in the financial markets.

Btw, this would be the seeming paradox. People treat the free market and Laissez-faire as the same. Yet, clearly, laissez-faire is what creates the black boxes that break the free market model; ie, the two ideas aren't truly compatible. The free market model presumes that people are rational; ie, they won't gamble their money or take risky ventures, like relying upon black box or overly complex models they don't understand. Since people clearly aren't rational on that standard, regulation is very much a necessity. The real issue, then, is how to well regulate the regulators from the extremes of under regulation, over regulation, and corruption.

PS - Why, yes, I did watch Frontline last night.

When you say survived very long; do you mean in economic terms, Bruce?

There are a number of large organisations [postgresql.org] of various kinds using PostgreSQL. They also had a new version released earlier this month, too...so apparently finding the resources to continue its' development isn't a problem for them.

Although I'm aware that it generally isn't considered socially acceptable to discuss this in Linux-related circles, it is actually possible to make money using BSD licensed software, you know. It seems to be working fairly well for Apple. ;)

It's *copyright* that prevents the forker from using dual licensing, not the GPL. Where does Stallman blame the GPL for that?

What about Trolltech?

Mu. Last time I checked, people in the free world didn't have to go around worrying about how they would prove they owned their posessions.

No. Because you had a good faith belief that it's not counterfeit.

Never before in the history of /. was "[citation needed]" more required than after reading that.

In my own daily life, I avoid, to the best of my ability, transactions with people and entities I consider evil and unethical.

Then you must either have a loose definition of evil, a loose definition of unethical, or live a very closeted life.

Stallman is considered by some to be a pure saint. People think he lives his life without compromises.

Sure, some very small minority believe Stallman is a pure saint. Most recognize that he pushes an extreme ideology which is currently unlivable, so compromise is necessary to avoid living a closeted life.

Yet, he simultaneously holds the position that proprietary software is evil, and that people who write GPLed software won't do so unless they are incented by the ability to sell non-GPLed copies of that software to evil people who are going to merge it with their proprietary software and sell it for a profit.

Not quite. He holds the position that some people can't reasonably work on GPL software unless they dual-license it. This, like the LGPL, is a compromise Stallman has taken to try to foster more development in GPL or GPL-like licenses. Hopefully, even more people will realize Stallman isn't a saint.

If I believed that someone was evil, I wouldn't have anything to do with them, and if I merely thought they were misguided, I wouldn't use that term -- it is very heavily loaded. I would almost go so far as to say Stallman is evil for using it. (See how that works?)

Granted. Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. But, such a position really works into being unable to call anyone or anything evil unless one is a pure saint. Since few to no such people exists, I don't think it's a reasonably position to take. The real issue is how overly broadly and commonly uses the word evil, not that he uses it at all.

Personally, I believe that Stallman has done some good things, but also has some stuff to answer for, and calling me evil is one of those things he will eventually have to answer for. He and his followers are not yet as single-mindedly obsessed as the Taliban or the anti-abortionists, but they are getting there.

Speaking of glass houses... Yes, there will almost certainly be those few people extreme enough willing to kill for an idea, regardless of the movement. As much as Stallman has called proprietary software evil and implicitly those who make it evil, he has never remotely advocated violence. He has instead advocated a new ideology of free software and directly put effort into developing it. To call him or his followers "as single-mindedly obsessed as the Taliban" is just as accurate as "as single-mindedly obsessed as the Civil Rights Movement". But, clearly, the latter doesn't have the same pejorative nature as the former does. Nor, clearly, are the methods or ends remotely similar.

Stallman may be very wrong in calling proprietary software evil, but trying to conflate him or his followers to violent groups is absurd and offensive. Stallman is no saint, and sainthood is no basis to believe in ideas or follow a person. If you find his ideas offensive, well that's life.

People also have to remember that there are different kinds of freedom and they often clash. The GPL isn't the One True Free License(tm). The GPL is in fact restrictive in ways others are free. The GPL provides the maximum freedom for the original author of the code. It ensures that anyone who takes his code, modify it, and distributes the modified application has to make the code available. As such the original author has access to all those modifications. He can also dual license the code, if he wishes. However it comes at the expense of user freedom. If you want to use GPL code, you have to make your code GPL. Can't do it otherwise. You are free to use it, but only in a given way.

The BSD license has less freedom for the coder, but more for the users. Users can do what they want, more or less, with BSD code. You are free to use it in non-open projects, or projects with a different license. Only real thing you have to do is note and acknowledge the copyright of the original author. What you do with it form there is your business.

Even more free than that would be public domain. Here the author gives up ALL control over the code. It is given to the public to do with as they please.

It does get a little tiring to see people go on about how the GPL is the only "free" out there. No, it is one idea of freedom. Other people have different ideas.

Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow.

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.

As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.

Stallman basically says that community-driven development of MySQL will fail, and that a corporate backer who can sell MySQL under a non-GPL license is required for the continuing viability of MySQL. The only reason that someone would buy MySQL under a non-GPL license is to link it with other proprietary software. So when I wrote:

So, I'm an unethical evil person because I make money writing proprietary software. However, it's a requirement that MySQL be sold to a different big evil corporation that doesn't already have a database offering and that can make money off it, else they might not support it.

there is no question that I was paraphrasing Stallman. Perhaps I was even satirizing Stallman. But I don't think I was twisting his words; just condensing them down to make the true essence of his bullshit more easily visible.