Brian Aker Responds To RMS On Dual Licensing 212
krow (Brian Aker, long-time MySQL developer) writes "Richard Stallman's comments on the Oracle Acquisition of Sun left me scratching my head over his continued support of closed-source licensing around open source software. Having spent more than a decade in the MySQL community, I feel that his understanding of the dual-license model is limited, and is at odds with his advocacy of free software. For this reason, I believe his recent statements concerning it need to be addressed. By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union."
That's a new one (Score:5, Insightful)
Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, apparently as long as [some of?] the source remains GPL, RMS seems okay with dual licensing.
Stallman's quote:
Re:That's a new one (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Sorry, not a single statement (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Sorry, not a single statement (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 copy
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Sorry, not a single statement (Score:4, Funny)
So, I'm an unethical evil person because I make money writing proprietary software.
He didn't say that, although you could infer it. He said the software was evil. He also talks about Freedom for software, so clearly there's an element of anthropomorphism going on here. Information wants to be free!
Sorry, my brain isn't big enough to hold the cognitive dissonance that is Stallman -- he gives me a headache.
Mission accomplished.
Umm, no (Score:3, Interesting)
is a quote directly addressing the proprietary software businesses. (Read the question.)
Since, for at least part of my life, I was a sole proprietor delivering proprietary software solutions, then, according to Stallman, I was acting unethically.
I also believe that he said I was evil. I will grant you that, in parsing English grammar properly, he might have said the software was acting
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
With the GPLv3 and its differential treatment of B2B vs. B2C software, its pretty clear that the FSF has decided to aggressively leverage the GPL's more restrictive nature, compared to other Free licenses, as a way to push business adoption of the GPL over other Free licenses, and a willingness to restructure where those restrictions cut to meet the preferences of big vendors.
Stallman's praise of the MySQL dual
Re: (Score:2)
(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.
Umm. Isn't this exactly the reason GPL was born in the first place?
If you want to modify open code, but not contribute back, you either don't use code under GPL or you don't distribute the modified version. Did they talk this through with all the people whose code was merged under the GPL? There is a reason why FSF could move to GPL3 and why the Linux kernel can't possibly do so.
Re:That's a new one (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
after all, none of the GNU software is dual licenced
I wish they would. It would give them money they could use to fund GNU development. In my experience companies have always chosen to redevelop libraries to work around GPL license issues, rather than GPLing their products.
This isn't the first time this has happened. (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:This isn't the first time this has happened. (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Free software/open source diffs aids understanding (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, pointing out why Open Source misses the point of Free Software [gnu.org] isn't pedantic or irrelevant, these differences are real and they explain why RMS takes the position you just pointed out.
RMS, as you rightly point out, understands that non-free software which eventually becomes free software is significantly better than non-free software that stays non-free forever because the former leads to eventually respecting our software freedom while the other can lead to our loss of software freedom. The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom. This too can lead to the loss of software freedom. So whenever someone licenses a non-free program, open source advocates have little reason to object despite how that chips away at our freedom (from the aforementioned essay, "This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss."). Free software activists, on the other hand, lament the disrespect for user's freedom which motivates them to support a project to develop a free replacement so that everyone can do that job whilst retaining their software freedom. Finally, as for the GPL: RMS wrote the GPL with user's freedoms in mind. The reason we enjoy the freedoms you champion at the end of your post is precisely because RMS pays attention to all computer user's software freedom. Had he taken an interest in mere development methodology instead, proprietary derivatives might be far more common than they are.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
Umm, no. The supposed "Free" software proponents like to try to make this distinction, but unfortunately it's bogus. You think some coder has business in mind as he contributes to Apache projects or zlib/MIT/BSD licensed projects? Haha, right... He has the users of his software in mind (which probably includes himself), and that's not any different than someone who is contributing to GPL software.
If you want to make a distinction, it's that so-called "open source proponents" realize that businesses m
groklaw's take on this (Score:5, Informative)
Groklaw has an interesting take [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.
See, for example, this comment [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:
I have come to suspect he's a double agent. And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.
Wow
Re:groklaw's take on this (Score:4, Informative)
Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
I met with Monty a few months ago and could not convince him that he could carry out his business although the MySQL server was under the GPL. He appears to be locked into some GPL FUD that MySQL got from a lawyer in service of selling the commercial license even though - IMO - you've never needed one to run the server, just a few of the client libraries.
So, Monty is now attempting to rebel against the GPL unnecessarily because of this false conclusion.
Or perhaps his real strategy is to kill the Sun/Oracle MySQL business, leaving him and his company in an advantageous position.
What makes this doubly strange is that Monty has been paid. Something around USD $100 Million for about 10 years work - a pretty good rate, IMO. Whatever he put into MySQL, he got compensated for. And thus I don't see that he has much moral standing on this issue.
Bruce
Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi Bruce!
Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model. Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.
Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with "free software". This is what I find to be sad in his actions.
The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open source is shameful.
-Brian
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Oops, wrong comment to post on.
Btw I assume you are referring to the non-sense that gpl follows protocol. Notice that with drizzle we have bsd drivers, and that many others drivers exist that are not gpl. The concept that gpl infects via protocol is absurd.
Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Hi Brian,
You do, you just don't couch it in those terms. Many - certainly not all - of us need a business model to justify the production of Open Source software. Certainly that was the case for MySQL AG while Monty and you worked there. I very strongly doubt that you would have been able to operate the company while paying yourselves without the dual licensing paradigm which you and the company espoused at the time.
So, what you said was:
Actually, it isn't anti-Open-Source at all. It's pro-proprietary-software. You're confusing the two. It is also pro-Open-Source in that it effectively funds its development.
I am really scratching my head regarding your moral position here. It's the license model you promoted. You got paid a salary. You produced a work-for-hire and the company had all rights to it. You sold the company, and you got paid again through your stock.
IMO, what you should do is let Sun and Oracle do what they wish with the ownership of MySQL, as the GPL copy will persist forever and you have freedom to continue its development, and your customers can use that server with their proprietary software without a problem. Sun/Oracle can develop or sink their MySQL version as they like, and we don't care because our version lives on. Ignore politics on a mailing list, everybody has a right to carry it out and you can have another, moderated, list if you don't like it.
And please stop promoting the FUD that the GPL and Sun's rights block you and are somehow unfair to your business. It doesn't, and isn't, and you've been compensated so far beyond the merely "fair" that your protests sound inappropriate.
Bruce
Re: (Score:2)
Based on...what? There are certainly companies that do business around F/OSS (and even F/OSS database
Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Published financial information is not the only evidence that a business is making a profit. Simply remaining a going concern for an extended period of time is evidence that the business is making money. OTOH, published financial information is no more than a written claim of facts, which is no different than the cl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
AdaCore [adacore.com] is another. Their business model does include dual licensing but for me, their support services are of more value.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I interviewed at Cygnus reasonably early in the company's existence. Most of my interaction was with John Gilmore. John was a very rich man from his stock proceeds as the 4th employee of Sun Microsystems. For most of their existence he has been the main financial source behind EFF and FSF.
So, I am not sure how long Cygnus ran on "a few thousand dollars". Also, we had no proof that they were profitable, either, when picked up by Red Hat.
Yes, a private company has little incentive to publish its financials.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hi!
I am not sure where in histrory you will find that I have ever advocated for dual licence, since it is well known that I do not for work which I personally do (aka if you check you will find that I lean toward BSD).
Also, I believe people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce. No company doing original work should feel that they have to open source it.
What I object to is Richard's comments which I find counter to the notion at what is at the center of notion of the gpl. I seem to rememb
Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh come on. You were a company representative for how many years? You promoted MySQL to a great many different communities under the license scheme it had at the time.
And you're being self-contradictory. If people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce, why isn't the Oracle-Sun partnership free to do what they want with the copyrights that Sun bought?
I seem to remember the fsf suggesting once that developers assign copyright to them to block dual license strategies.
Richard would have much rather that Monty had donated the copyright to FSF 10 years ago. He didn't. He chose to make himself somewhere in excess of 100 Million dollars on the software through selling a dual-licensing company, and now he, through you, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to do that.
Well, if Monty really thinks so he should get together some other investors and purchase the copyright.
Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds? You made USD$1.1 Billion off of them!!!
Then, you sold the company, fairly, and Monty took a king's ransom in profit, and no doubt Brian took home some cash too.
I can't see that you have the slightest ethical stance to complain.
Re: (Score:2)
Hi!
So I will repeat myself one more time, you are free to do what you want with what you write.
I said nothing about what Oracle or Sun should do. I have pointed out that the dual license model is a viable business model.
What I have said is Richard has squandered an opportunity to address larger questions that exist for free/open source to support a model that is contrary to the promotion of additional open source software.
I see that you are trying to make some point, but I believe you are doing it at the ex
Re: (Score:3)
I am not sure where in histrory you will find that I have ever advocated for dual licence, since it is well known that I do not for work which I personally do (aka if you check you will find that I lean toward BSD).
If MySQL itself had used the BSD license, this particular conflict (as with so many, many others) would not be happening.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Because they wouldn't have survived very long. And none of us would be using MySQL. Don't you think that's self-defeating?
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 wo
Re: (Score:2)
That was never my decision, though I have advocated it.
It is hard to say what the right solution is. I find it sad to see how in some bsd projects few of the vendors who make use of the software participate in improving the base software. On the same token having a monopoly on source changes seems to also stifle innovation.
I believe we have yet to achieve the propper balance that will eventually be required.
Re: (Score:2)
Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.
Actually they're far less worse for those communities than the alternative: loan sharks and organized crime. Poor people are poor, not stupid.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Groklaw has an interesting take [groklaw.net] on this, full of conspiracy theories.
See, for example, this comment [groklaw.net], where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:
I have come to suspect he's a double agent.
And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.
Wow
Groklaw is turning into the Troofer site for the realm of technology law.
PJ did great work on shining the light of day on SCO, but damn, Groklaw is turning into the professional athlete that played about a decade too long in a futile search for former glory.
Re: (Score:2)
Groklaw also broke the story that MS is either one of or the complainant, that Monty is part of their (arguably bogus) open-source initiative, and that some of the legal arguing is explicitly anti-GPL.
As a business, MS has no real reason to complain that Oracle might hurt MySQL. They should be hoping that MySQL is hurt, to the advantage of the MS sql server.
I read it as an effort to distract the EC and get an easy "out" of some of the penalties that MS faces. Plus get back at Scott for all the unkind t
RMS doesn't care about open source (Score:4, Informative)
RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software. There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source." If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly. Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.
Re:RMS doesn't care about open source (Score:5, Informative)
RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software.
Well yeah... What is the use of have access to the source code when the license forbids you to modify it?
That's the different between Open Source Software and Free Open Source Software. I mean Microsoft releases source code to 3rd parties all the time but the strings attached to the code are pretty brutal.
Re: (Score:2)
MS-PL is pretty nice though... But most of their "Shared Source" is far from MS-PL.
A definition of open source (Score:2)
That's the different between Open Source Software and Free Open Source Software
I don't know what dictionary you're getting your definition of open source from; but I take it you're not using http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org]. It says
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Divide and conquer (Score:2)
RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software. There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source." If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly. Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.
That's right. Keep bringing this up. Keep treating it as important. The corporations that you're so paranoid about, love it when you do...because it means that while you're busy arguing about this, you're not providing them with any consistent form of opposition instead.
But then again, what am I saying? If you were one of the people who were actually helping Linux get somewhere, you wouldn't be on Slashdot.
Oops, I forgot to use the term, "GNU/Linux," as well. You'd better remind me not to do that next
Re:RMS doesn't care about open source (Score:5, Informative)
Wrong. The BSD license and its ilk *are* Free Software licenses, they're just not "copyleft" which is a desirable but not vital quality as far as RMS is concerned. The ones that are OSS-but-not-Free are those like the license of Pine which disallows redistribution of modified works, or some of Microsoft's Shared Source licenses which disallow commercial redistribution at all.
If you wish, you can educate yourself further here [fsf.org], and the FSF's definition of Free Software here [fsf.org].
Re: (Score:2)
First off, I didn't say the BSD license was not "free." Read my post again. I'll admit there was a very weak implication there, but not a statement of fact. Certainly one one justifying your condescending post. Secondly, perhaps YOU should educate yourself: the original BSD license is not considered "free" (by the FSF) because it is incompatible with the GPL. The revised license is more or less acceptable to RMS:
"In the GNU project, we use copyleft to protect these freedoms legally for everyone. But no
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The original BSD license is listed under "GPL-Incompatible Free Software Licenses", while the revised one is under "GPL-Compatible Free Software Licenses" alongside RMS's own GPL so yes, both are considered Free Software licenses by the FSF.
And I can't see why it'd be wrong for RMS to claim the modified BSD license is ethical, unless you wish to imply he implies its an ethically-inferior choice compared to the GPL which as my link above proves its not the case. Stallman has said many times that the copyleft
Re: (Score:2)
Those licenses are, in addition to not being "Free Software" as defined by Free Software advocates, also aren't "Open Source Software" as def
What's your definition of Open Source? (Score:2)
See my other post: http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1414861&cid=29842015 [slashdot.org]
From http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd [opensource.org]:
The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Also
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
I don't think the licenses you talk about are Open Source by what we might want to call the official definition.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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. H
Here's what Stallman, et al, said (Score:4, Informative)
The letter from Stallman and the others discussed two ways in which forking MySQL would be hard. One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.
The other problem the letter mentions, though, has nothing to do with GPLv3 vs GPLv2. Here is how they describe the problem. I'll include the GPLv3 argument for completeness:
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.
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.
Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2.
Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the "any later version" clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money, and that letter [keionline.org] is signed by Stallman.
Re: (Score:2)
One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.
in what way does that make the point irrelevant? the problem still exists. just because you see a way of apportioning blame does not make the problem go away.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It's irrelevant because the same objection could be raised for any pair of incompatible license. E.g., if MySQL were under GPLv3, you could object that a fork could not bring code that is GPLv2-only. There is a plenty of free software under GPLv2, and other free non-GPL licenses, that can be used with a forked MySQL.
In fact, most, if not all, significant open source databases are under licenses that, if compatible with GPLv3, are also compatible with GPLv2, and these are the most likely outside places code
Dual Licensing is a good business model (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Dual licensing under the GPL also doesn't satisfy the folks who want to maximize the primary benefit to software users of F/OSS: the guarantee that no matter what the copyright owner, original vendor, or any other single market actor does, maintenance and further development to meet the users evolving need will be viable for either the user's organization itself or third part
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If the copyright holder chooses to license the software under a different license to a third party, the GPL'd code is still freely available under the terms of the GPL.
If the licensee then makes some modifications, they may choose to keep them proprietary. This only directly impacts those that use the modified version of the code.
The viability of the GPL'd version is in no way impacted by changes to the proprietary version. Everyone still has all the rights that they did before--it's just that the proprie
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Bruce!
Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model. Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.
Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with "free software". This is what I find to be sad in his actions.
The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open sour
Re: (Score:2)
Hi Brian,
You do, you just don't couch it in those terms. Many - certainly not all - of us need a business model to justify the production of Open Source software. Certainly that was the case for MySQL AG while Monty and you worked there. I very strongly doubt that you would have been able to operate the company while paying yourselves without the dual licensing paradigm which you and the company espoused at the
No way to prevent dual licensing? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
To prevent dual licensing, you can:
1) Give the copyright to someone else
2) Release it into the public domain
3) Release it under the BSD license, so even if you dual license it everyone will simply sue the BSD version
Re: (Score:2)
If different parts of the code are copyrighted by different contributors (like the Linux kernel) then any particular contributor cannot dual-license.
open source? (Score:3, Insightful)
By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union.
umm...RMS doesn't advocate Open Source. RMS advocates Free Software
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but (Score:5, Informative)
Yes, there is. The problem RMS is pointing out, is if Oracle basically shutters MySQL after acquiring it, as the owners of the primary license they can prevent MySQL from ever having a GPLv3 release, or any further closed source releases to fund further development. MySQL forks at that point will be locked into GPLv2 without the option of closed source releases to help fund further development.
Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
What about this clause that is attached to the GPL in the MySQL code?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
From what I understand MySQL is distributed under a modified GPLv2 license. The principle modification being the removal of the "any later version" clause.
Re:Forgive me if I'm wrong but (Score:5, Informative)
The principle modification being the removal of the "any later version" clause.
Just checked a fresh download of the MySQL 5.1.40 source. This statement is correct – the random sampling of source files I checked do not contain the "or later" clause in the licence notification.
Not a modified GPLv2 license (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But any FOSS software for which IP ownership is not concentrated (ie all developers kept their own copyright) is impossible to relicense, right? So MySQL is the exception because one party has IP rights, and the worst that can happen is that it becomes a normal FOSS project.
The real argument is that MySQL is developer with money acquired through the dual licensing, so that could go away. But admitting that is basically admitting that FOSS does not have a valid business model (in this case), so that's not op
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Quite a lot of the GNU software is owned by the Free Software Foundation. Apache, Mozilla, X.org and Samba are owned by their respective foundations. OpenOffice.org and MySQL are owned by Sun.
The only major project on a typical distro I can think of that is owned by the individual contributors is linux.
Re: (Score:2)
Perl, php, python, postgres, memcached, and many others have copyrights which are shared among multiple copyright owners. Apache is in the same boat (Rasmus continues to not sign over his rights). Mysql itself, do to Oracle owning Innodb, is in part owned Oracle as well as Sun.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The EU could make it a condition of the takeover that they sell either the Oracle Database or the MySQL Database to a third party. That sort of thing quite often happens in anti-trust investigations.
They won't be directly concerned about keeping MySQL free and open source, but they may be concerned that having two major database servers owned by the same company reduces competition.
Re: (Score:3)
Wrong. You made the same mistake with the Linux kernel ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406005&cid=29765325 [slashdot.org] ). The GPL states that:
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."
The MySQL source is released explicitly under version 2 of the licence and *not* "any later version". Let's pick a rand
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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. That's what the GPL is really all about. If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO. If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all. Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.
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.
Ah yes, the WTFPL [zoy.org].
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
Your trollish demeanor aside, the GPL is nothing like a standard EULA.
In fact, using GPL software is much like reading a book. The issues of copyright never come into play until you get it in your head that you wish to redistribute the work in question. Copyright says "no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder" while the GPL says "yes, under these terms. If you don't like them, Copyright says no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder."
Whereas proprietary software requires you read and accept a license before using it. Completely unlike a book.
Hopefully you will understand Stallman and the GPL better now, or I will have to apologize for feeding a troll.
You're confused. (Score:5, Informative)
The GPL is not an EULA. In your book example, you can buy, read, resell, etc, the book in question. Exactly what you can do with any software, barring (possibly) an EULA.
You can certainly do all that with GPL software without ever reading or agreeing to the GPL. Agreement is not required for use.
Other actions, such as making and distributing copies, are restricted by copyright law, and apply to books as well as software regardless of license. The GPL happens to be a license which allows copying and redistribution, actions which are otherwise forbidden by copyright. You only must agree to GPL when you take action that bumps against copyright law.
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
You are conflating a "usage" license with a "distribution" license. I agree that the former is completely inane. But the latter is a necessary extension of the concept of copyright, and the basis of the GPLv2.
Re:So what (Score:5, Informative)
While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
No. But guess what? The GPL doesn't require that, either.
The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license. ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.
What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in). And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).
Re:So what (Score:4, Informative)
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.
Are you serious? Maybe you should read the GPL before passing public judgment on it.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
-- GPLv2 [gnu.org]
Things don't work the way you think (Score:2, Informative)
Things don't work the way you think. The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it. You're bound to it anyway.
Re:Things don't work the way you think (Score:5, Informative)
You don't buy a license for a book, you buy a physical copy of a book's content. Copyright law says you can't make copies of a protected work and distribute them.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Bruce, normally I find you enlightening, but could you provide a link that backs up that statement? Because it seems pretty counterintuitive that a there is any sort of "license" involved in the sale of books.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
If the book is generally available then it clearly isn't a trade secret and I wouldn't need a licence, implied or otherwise, to be protected from being (successfully) prosecuted under trade secret law.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think he's just saying that there's an implicit understanding between you and the copyright holder (or whomever) that they are willfully distributing the work to you (i.e. you didn't acquire it via underhanded tactics, which might bring trade secret [wikipedia.org] law into the equation).
IANAL.
Bruce Perens on crack? (Score:5, Interesting)
WTF? You're bound by copyright law when you buy a book. Nothing more, nothing less. What is this license you speak of? Where do I find it? What makes it binding? How do I violate it?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
How can you show that you have a right to posess the book at all, and that you had a right to purchase it?
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.
Because it is published.
No. Because you had a good faith belief that it's not counterfeit.
That creates an implicit license. Without it, you could be prosecuted, not under copyright law but under trade secret law.
Never before in the history of /. was "[citation needed]" more required than after reading that.
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
Er, have you actually read the GPL? From section 9 (GPLv3):
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Erm, the GPL is a distribution license. You are free to run, modify, print and use as toilet paper, or do whatever as long as you do not distribute. If you wish to distribute the code, you need to follow the license and include your changes with it. I think even the biggest FLOSS zealots understand this. Why can't you?
As for this:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.
You don't have to with GPL code either. If you were to copy the book, or make knock-off furniture or clothing and then sold or distributed, you could likely be sued for it. If you
Re:So what (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're confusing EULAs with distribution licenses. Consider:
EULA: Microsoft produces Office. Before I can use it I have to agree to certain conditions of use. Copyright law restricts me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it without permission getting permission from MS.
GPL: Sun produces Java. They give it to me and I can use it without agreeing to any conditions limiting my use of the software*. Copyright law would restrict me from re-distributing (or creating new works from) it, but Sun has