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: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:This makes no sense (Score:4, Informative)
Re:This makes no sense (Score:5, Interesting)
Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)
The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.
That, of course, makes no sense at all. The FSF explains it very succintly [gnu.org], and David Wheeler quite recently explained it in a very detailed manner [dwheeler.com].
I disagree -- and the issue matters to me (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:2)
I'm not sure from your description what the problem is with your project. If people had previously submitted code under GPLv2 only, then I would think most of the code would have to be GPLv2 only, so no change would be necessary? Is it possible to mix "GPLv2 and la
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Is it possible to mix "GPLv2 and later" and "GPLv2 only"?
IANAL, but it would seem to me that given a program consisting of two modules, one GPLv2+ and one GPLv2-only, the result would be distributable only under GPLv2.
Distribution under the terms of GPLv2 would satisfy the licensing requirements of both modules, but distribution under the terms of GPLv3 would violate the license of the v2-only module. The GPLv2+ module could be used as part of another program distributed according to the terms of GPLv3.
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:3, Insightful)
We're going to have to do this with Adium as well. We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3, and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2 since it's the license they submitted with.
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 as
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: (Score:3, Informative)
Also note that the "v2 or later" language is not actually part of the license (or a license type itself); it's just a phrase that is traditionally used to introduce the license in many releases.
More than that. It's the language that typically accompanies the copyright statement, and is the formal indication of the license granted by the copyright holder. The recipient can choose which set of rules they redistribute under, but I'm not at all sure they can change the actual license chosen by the copyright holder.
To be clear, If write a program and license it under v2+, I think you can:
Re: Agendas (Score:3, Interesting)
Tivo has abused V2 in a novel way that privatizes their software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization [wikipedia.org] Tivo is just the beginning of V2 abuse. (novell/microsoft anyone?) What happens when Trusted Computing is fully implemented? Tivo on a massive scale.
I'm saying this agenda benefits everyone tomorrow rather than sticking with V2 where the public benefits will com
Re: (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 f
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If some company implemented some hardware that runs in a critical area of some system (say, an airplane's fly by wire system) and just allowed any software whatsoever to run on it, and someone put new software on it, many people could be injured or killed very easily.
Why would an airline allow anyone to install arbitrary, uncertified software on mission-critical hardware? And why would the vendor of that hardware have any interest in preventing the airline from installing whatever software they want?
But,really, that's all beside the point because GPLv3 would not prevent the hardware vendor from implementing cryptographic signature checking that ensures that only authorized code is placed on that device -- GPLv3 would only require that the vendor give the signing ke
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:2)
GPL3 has more restrictions than GPL2 but the agenda has not changed as far as I can tell.
I've looked at the GPL3 draft and every additional restriction does seem to better promote that agenda than GPLv2 (against real threats or current uses of the GPL not in line with the stated purpose). I suspect a lot of the people complaining about GPLv3 actually liked or even relied on some of the holes in GPLv2, that were wo
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:2)
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:2)
I agree with others here -- even if it's legally OK for you to do that, if they released their code under v2 or later, then they have to be OK with it. You'll have to decide for yourself whether you want v3 or not -- and I'd suggest you either wait for v3 to be released, or
Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we (Score:2)
All of the GPL licenses have been about pushing an agenda with a license. Personally, I think the new license is generally clearer and easier to work with. It makes it much easier for non-GPL free software and GPL free software to be able to play together.
You are trying to push an agenda with your license too. It's an anti-GPLv3 agenda. So you're complaint about the GPLv3 is somewhat silly. If there's something a little more specific you'd like to complain about, please do. I would really hate to hav
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL isn't "masquerading", it defines what free-as-in-freedom software means, and it is quite explicit about it. Nor, for that matter, is the FSF religiously insisting on the GPL; quite to the contrary: they advocate that you think carefully about what licenses you use beforehand. I suspect that the FSF would well have considered it more sensible to make parts of Adium (like the protocol implementations) LGPL.
A group of folks
Good for them. (Score:3, Interesting)
Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude.
what does GPL3 make worse ? (Score:3, Insightful)
I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.
"programmers in good faith" can still develop every bit with the "or-any-later"-clause. and free software is about a system of thoughts: users have a right to know how the software works, a right to tinker and a right to pass their changes on. nearly everyone who contributes to free / open source software has accepted this, be it b/c of morality (FSF ppl: RMS for example) or b/c they think its a far superiour development model (OSS ppl: Linus, ESR).
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying
Re: (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
uh, no. (Score:2, Troll)
Uhm. And? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?
Re:Uhm. And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Right before that clause there is a note saying that future licences will have the same spirit (read intention) than the curent one. That means, the licence protect the 4 freedoms, for you and everybody that you send a copy of the work (and that is quite clear at the licence).
All those problems are caused by people that want the benefits that GPL give them (code hard to steal, a communit that develops for you, and a few others) without wanting the obligations that come with them. But both come toguether, G
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you don't actually know *why* that clause is in there? For a work like Linux, it's so that it's *possible* to update the license (they don't use it, but if they did, they'd be able to update the license).
Why d
Re: (Score:2)
As a sidenote, having a licence that specifies "this version or any other later revision of this licence" is kinda braindead. That makes it possible to do all kinds of neat tricks to the licence, and you can't really do anything about it (Except change the licence for the next release).
However, those "neat tricks" can also be beneficial, so it can also be a good idea.
Really, it just comes down to a question of how much you trust the author of the license. If you can safely assume that future revisions won't do anything you disagree with, then that's fine. Personally, I'm very much in agreement with the goals of the FSF, and I have confidence that they aren't going to change -- RMS hasn't changed his perspective one iota in the last 20 years, so I think we can safely assume he won't
Re: (Score:2)
It's just plain dumb to have a license that can be retroactively changed by anyone other then you.
Think about it in terms of common sense.
Would you trust your benevolent dictator or hedge your bets to ensure a path chosen by you.
overzealous and immoral FSF power grab (Score:3, Informative)
It's difficult to overstate how strong the ramifications of that "or any later version" clause are. For all intents and purposes, including that clause when you license your code is the next best thing to assigning copyright of your code to the FSF, since it allows them to re-license your code as they see fit.
Of course, the FSF likes you to assign copyright to them anyway, but failing that, they booby-trapped the license with language which most people have not been aware
Re: (Score:2)
Now Tivo comes along and takes your software and with a legal trick circumvents your license, maki
'able to obtain'? (Score:3, Interesting)
Every bit of Tivo's source code is available, and anyone who wants to use it can use the software. You are completely free to use that software on any hardware that will run it. They've built hardware with PROM bootstrap that refuses to execute a kernel that isn't signed by a Tivo key. There are very good reasons why a company mi
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?
Sure, every change they've made or will make that's licensed GPLv2 only. You can indeed download the most-recent "GPLv2 or higher" code, but if you then patch it with any "GPLv2 only" code you can only redistribute under GPLv2.
Re:Uhm. And? (Score:4, Insightful)
Freedom is scary (Score:2, Informative)
What kind of liberties are there to be afraid of?
The GPLv3 can only restore the liberties suspended by copyright, patents, and the DMCA. It cannot grant any additional liberties, e.g. to inspect the publisher's premises, or to sleep with its CEO's daughter, etc.
Re: (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 servic
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
And then you get laughed out of court.
Seriously, do you people even bother to try to understand something before you spout garbage like this?
Re: (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 th
Re: (Score:2)
However, that would indicate that FSF had completely lost the plot - no sign of that so far.
So, yes, I will concede that a later version of the GPL could end up reducing the PUBLIC's liberty (even if it cannot reduce the licensee's liberty).
Re: (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: (Score:2)
You've got to be eternally vigilant in holding uppermost in your mind that the freedom provided by the GPL is not to a specific licensee, but to all licensees of all published copies and all published derivatives.
Hence, a license for the general public that restores to it the freedoms otherwise suspended by copyright, patents and the DMCA.
The BSD
Doublespeak (Score:5, Informative)
To be more clear, what they have done was **take away the option** for other people to distribute the code under a GPL version higher than GPL2. Under the old wording, the company has no obligation to distribute their code under GPL3, even after GPL3 is released.
MySQL AB could continue distributing the code under GPL2 and leave others with the option of distributing their derivatives of it under GPL3. So their concern is what **other people** might do with their code, and has nothing to do with MySQL AB being forced to do anything.
What they are actually concerned with is a forking of their project by a group of developers who prefer GPL3 over GPL2. Anyone so inclined could still create such a fork using a version of MySQL distributed under the old wording (including the most recent current versions, if they received the code under the old license). They just wouldn't be able to use any code from MySQL that came after the license change. It would have to be a clean break, with no sharing of code after the license change.
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]
Re: (Score:2)
The clause giving users the right to apply a later version is neither unknown, nor part of the GPL. Rather, anyone who distributes their code under the GPL has the choice of allowing his users to use a later license or not. Tha
Re: (Score:2)
The FSF _could_ make itself party to a future GPL simply by issuing the licence including itself in the terms. A coder would make the FSF party by licencing under such. This would give RMS standing to sue NVidia over the Linux graphics module being [allegedly] a derivat
Quietly? (Score:3, Interesting)
"MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses... VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog..."
How does the VP of community relations announcing it on his blog qualify as 'quietly changing'? What do you want them to do, throw a bloody parade? Not everything is a secret plot to destroy OSS.
Yeah... (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...
Re: (Score:2)
Need some answers on GNU/GPL (Score:2)
Could anyone point me to a good resource/site where I could ask some specific questions about the (commercial) use of GPL-ed code (more specifically the Quake 3 engine source), as the GNU/GPL site [gnu.org] doesn't offer me all my answers I am looking for; And when I contacted them by email with those specific questions, they referred me to talk to a lawyer specialised in this (which I am currently
Re: (Score:2)
I have had several friends ask me about the use of GPL code, so I'll guess what your question was. I'm not a lawyer, though, and this is not legal advice.
I'm assuming that you want to write non-Free software and use GPL code with it (it might be a good idea to refrain from using
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
* This assumes there was no agreement between the author and MySQL at the time the copyright was assigned, which specified that the code could only ever be licensed under GPL vX. If
Why So Much Fuss About GPL3? (Score:2)
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:5, Insightful)
that is what they did.
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: (Score:2)
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.
GPLv3 in a nutshell (Score:3, Informative)
GPLv3 is considered problematic at this point because of a few things th
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To me, it seems like this clause being put in the GPL2 is one of those little things to try to encourage trust via the way the mind handles logical inconsitancies, even if these inconsistancies were due to accident and not intent. Either that or sheer arrogance.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
What I wish: They take everything they are going to put in GPL v3 into a license with a different name, so that code writers don't have to worry about what the exact wording they used years ago.
Why couldn't they just have called the GPLv3 something like the Gnu Free License v1 (GFPL v1), or something like that? They are riding on the coat tails of the GPL v2, an
Re: (Score:2)
No, it gives the FSF a blank check, blank checks are not a good idea.
That depends on how much you trust the recipient of the blank check.
What's *also* not a good idea is to tie yourself permanently to a license that may be horribly broken. I don't think GPLv2 is that badly flawed, but there are issues that need to be fixed. The Linux kernel is an example of a project that can never be anything other than v2, so as more companies figure out the TiVo exploit, or find other ways to work around it, the kernel devs are simply going to have to accept it.
As another post poin
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a blank check (Score:4, Informative)
FSF or You (Score:2)
Now, consider the Gentoo project. As far as I know, every single ebuild is copyrighted the "Gentoo Foundation". That means they can relicense it to anything they want, at any time.
If I were to keep all the rights to all my code -- and any contributions to it -- I'd certainly be happy with saying GPLv2 only, until I'm convinced I like GPLv3. Otherwise, if it's something like Linux, where every contributor owns the rights to their own
Re: (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
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYONE should read the terms that they cut-n-paste into their software carefully, and make sure that they have not put their software out under terms that they did not intend!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You trust the FSF to make changes carefully
Re: (Score:2)
Say Microsoft bought out/bribed/coerced/whatevered the people that write the GPL. Then they "asked" them to write a new version of the GPL that let MS do whatever they want.
Bam. Instantly, all GPL 2 and above apps/OSes are able to be used.
I don't like the idea of trusting people that seem to be honest, and decent now. While the current crop seem very determined to do things the right way now, if there's one thing that history has shown us - it's that
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No one is forcing them... (Score:4, Informative)
They did. They set their license to be GPLv2 only.
programmers can't read licenses (Score:2)
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
is NOT part of the license, it is instructions for the license to the copyright holder. When it says (at your option) it is at the option of the copyright holder to automatically apply future versions. A licensee cannot make this choice, despite there being som
Re:Hoopla! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
To the people who think it is all some radical overreach, consider how radical the original vision of free software appeared and how accepted it is now (in the form of GPLv2). It's not surprising that the same kinds of opposition appear when bringing the license up to date.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hoopla! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL doesn't forbid you from making money. Mod parent Troll.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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:Thank You Speghetti Monster! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This means, for instance, Microsoft can't take Gaim, release it as a new version of MSN Messenger, and use Trusted Computing to prevent their servers from communicating with modified versions of Gaim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It sounds like the "GPL2 or later" clause in their previous license terms meant that someone could conceivably donate some code (and/or fork the project) under GPL3 terms, in which case either parts of their code (or the entirety of the fork) would end up being GPL3.
Now any donated code or forks of subsequent version of MySQL (currently) must be GPL2 licensed. Of course, if someone wanted to go back one version and fork from there, GPL3 would still be a possibility, I think.