On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 23:07:12 -0500, Christopher Ness wrote > "Free as in beer" or "Free as in Freedom". Can you not view the > code, extend the ideas into current MySQL implementations or compile > the code yourself? That's an interesting question. If someone takes MySQL 4 under the GPL and then uses it to enhance MySQL 3 libraries, does that then encumber the code they've produced from a commercial perspective, despite their having obtained and used the code while it was under a GPL license? Meaning, this developer has used GPL code to enhance GPL code . . . because of MySQL's whacky licensing, is that enhance code now encumbered by MySQL's new commercial licensing scheme? As for people that download only binaries getting a "free ride" . . . That's the whole intent of RMS's ideas. People that use binary software that is freely available are the "society overall" that RMS talks about in his "Why Software Should be Free" (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html) essay. "To put it another way, if restricting the distribution of a program already developed is harmful to society overall, then an ethical software developer will reject the option of doing so." RMS isn't saying "harmful to other software developers" he's saying "harmful to society overall" -- that community of people that develop and / or use software. I don't have a problem with the development of commercially licensed software, I'm not as married to the idea of "all software should be Free" as RMS is, however, when you license code you develop under the GPL, you're embracing RMS's ideas for at least that code which you've GPL licensed. I don't think there is a halfway point here. The entire intent of the GPL is to go "all the way" in making the licensed code completely and totally Free. To continue: "Consider for a moment that a program has been developed, and any necessary payments for its development have been made; now society must choose either to make it proprietary or allow free sharing and use. Assume that the existence of the program and its availability is a desirable thing.(3) Restrictions on the distribution and modification of the program cannot facilitate its use. They can only interfere. So the effect can only be negative. But how much? And what kind? Three different levels of material harm come from such obstruction: * Fewer people use the program. * None of the users can adapt or fix the program. * Other developers cannot learn from the program, or base new work on it." Not only does MySQL's new license restrict redistribution (and thus cause charm to "society overall") it takes what is otherwise GPL code and restricts the ability of "user [to] adapt or fix the program" and restricts "other [commercial] developers [learning] from the program, or [basing] a new work on it." The MySQL 4 shouldn't be offered under a GPL at all because it is possible (and would be quite easy) for a developer to "taint" MySQL 3 with encumbered MySQL 4 code. Sticking ostensibly GPLed MySQL 4 "enhancements" in MySQL 3 will effectively render the code impossible to use commerically, thus unable to further the use of the GPL. The code will no longer be able to be distributed under the GPL because it contains code that is restricted in redistribution by MySQL's "dual license" scheme. If you want to develop commerical, closed licensed software, that's fine, there's room for that in the world, but this here is walking a very thin tight rope. You endanger other GPL code when you say "if you use this non- commerically, it's GPL, if you use it commerically, it's not GPL." It's dangerous to be in a position where a GPL software developer can encumber otherwise GPL code with "dual license" code such as what exists in MySQL 4. If this is mistaken, if code taken under a GPL license from software that is only GPL when certain conditions are met does *not* encumber the resulting code, then please say so. I honestly feel that if MySQL wants to release commercial versions of MySQL that are not GPLed, they should not offer the same software under GPL for other use. That's not really GPLing the code at all which is intended to make the software Free for *all* use! Doesn't anyone else feel that code that is "GPL for non-commerical use, but not GPL for commercial use" is dangerous from a licensing perspective? -- Chris "Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night. Set a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life." -- Unknown
