On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 00:08 -0500, Richard Welty wrote: > On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:17:01 +0000 Rui Miguel Seabra <rms@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Both statements contain conclusions derived from absurd assumptions. > > As anyone with a little bit of logic bases can understand, from the > > absurd any conclusion may be drafted. > > explain what's absurd. i think my interpretation is fairly derived from > mysql ab's own public statements: > > http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html I know they intentionally mislead people with the 'commercial' word, but YES you can charge for copies of MySQL without asking for their permission, it is GPL software. Go read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial > > What MySQL AB did was: > > If you want to make a *Proprietary* application, then you have to buy > > a special license. > > This change resulted that you _CAN'T_ make proprietary softwar > > derived from GPL'ed Libraries. > > NO. Yes. This IS the change. > the change with 4.1 is that the libraries are now GPL rather than LGPL. > this means that from 4.1 you can't even LINK without being forced to the > GPL (or else buying a commercial license.) derivation is NOT the same > as linking as i understand copyright law. Once the binary is used, the thing that is being used is the derivate result of adding MySQL's libraries to your software. Linking creates a derivate work. Try not using MySQL libraries then, with the same code, and see if it works. If a library is GPL'ed, then the software using that library must be GPL'ed. > it's a very substantial change, which will likely have the net effect of > causing businesses to look at PostgreSQL and Firebird, neither of > which are encumbered by this oddball commercial/free license split. There is no commercial/free license split, only: a proprietary/free license split > RedHat actually sells A LOT of GPL'ed software, so it is being sold > > *Commercially*. > redhat sells DISTRIBUTIONS which include GPL'ed software. > > HOWEVER, of course you can sell (commercial distribution) GPL'ed > > software. > > DISTRIBUTE, not sell. I'll grant you that 'sell' is a confusing word, it has a problem of semantics, of assuming property, but pragmatically, it's the same thing as distributing for a fee of 500â. http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware Please try to learn more about Free Software at www.fsf.org before replying to this mail, or, if you want, I can try to hep you understand, but you have to get yourself rid of those misconceptions. Rui -- + No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown + Whatever you do will be insignificant, | but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi + So let's do it...? Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments. See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
