Hi,
On 10/04/2010 11:22 AM, Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
was this meant to be offlist? anyway I am cc-ing the list on this.
Well, I just checked. You mailed me offlist a couple of responses back. I
normally just do a "Reply All" to all mailing list mails, since if I bother to
reply, I am doing so to content and not to people. Anyways ...
On Thu, 2010-09-30 at 18:21 +0530, steve wrote:
I don't follow the reasoning here. If mysql was under a BSD license,
sun/oracle
could just as well /lifted/ the code without having to even buy mysql
(like
Apple does with the BSD kernel).
precisely. BSD license allows one to make the application proprietary,
but insists on name change and also insists that the application is not
touted as derived from the original. That is why apple calls it open
darwin or whatever. What they do is perfectly legal.
Ok, so lets call this scenario (1). Where it is perfectly legal for recipients
of BSD code to modify it and turn it proprietary *but* there is not way for
recipients of this modified BSD code to get access to the modifications.
> Reason: it was GPL'ed and dual licensed. Since it was dual licensed,
> mysql could not add any code contributed from outsiders, as if it
did,
> then such code could not be added to it's proprietary version.
I think you are misinformed. The mysql commercial license is for
'users' of
mysql who do not want to comply with the GPL:
http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/oem/#3
the exact text is:
<quote>
Q3: As a commercial OEM, ISV or VAR, when should I purchase a commercial
license for MySQL software?
A: OEMs, ISVs and VARs that want the benefits of embedding
commercial binaries of MySQL software in their commercial
applications but do not want to be subject to the GPL and do not
want to release the source code for their proprietary
applications should purchase a commercial license from Oracle.
Purchasing a commercial license means that the GPL does not
apply, and a commercial license includes the assurances that
distributors typically find in commercial distribution
agreements.
</quote>
wonderful things one can do with GPL applications ;-). The same mysql:
you can either use it as a GPL'ed app or you can use it as a proprietary
app!!!
I think you are confusing matters here. Firstly, there are 2 *different*
licenses we are speaking about. GPL and Commercial. That is the meaning of
*dual* licensing. Secondly, yes, you as a recipient of the app, get to *choose*
which license you want (unlike scenario 1).
> So what
> they did was only accept code if the contributor handed over the
> copyright to mysql. (they paid for it - but no handover meant the
code
> was not accepted).
Umm, here is what I know about Mysql licensing:
a. If the user was to package mysql with a proprietary app.
(with/without
changes) he would have to purchase the Mysql commercial license.
with no need to contribute back - but allowed to change and modify the
code under the same name!
Let me get this straight -- what do you have a problem with ? That they can
change and modify and make proprietary ? (from scenario 1, that doesn't seem to
be the case) ...or that they can do all of that without changing the name ?
...because, in the first case it is just like BSD and in the second /less/
restrictive than BSD !! ie: for sake of argument, let us assume that they were
only allowed to modify and turn proprietary *if* they changed the name, would
you be ok with it ?
If you would, I'd suggest that as you read further while thinking of the mysql
commercial license as a BSD license with the change of name clause removed
(<sarcasm> yay ! /sounds/ still 'free-er', doesn't it ?!! </sarcasm> )
b. If the user wanted to distribute sources of his changes yet license
the
changes under a different license, he would have to purchase the
commercial
license and re-distribute his changes.
whatever this means - as I said I do not understand the GPL, and so
cannot understand whether this complies with the GPL or not.
ugh ! the commercial license != GPL. So, people purchasing under the commercial
license need not comply with the GPL ...and whether people want to purchase
under the commercial license (ie: think 'free-er' BSD license) is their own choice.
c. If he wanted Mysql to accept (/merge) his changes back to Mysql he
would have
to use the GPL (Note: *not* hand over copyright to Mysql)
back in about 2003 I was involved in a flame war with the owner of
mysql, and he told me that they only accept contributions if the
copyright was handed over to mysql (under GPL of course). And assured my
that this would be paid for. If this had not happened, he would not have
been the owner of the whole copyright of mysql and would not have been
able to sell the software as if it was a commodity (and pocket
millions).
What is wrong with selling software as if it was a commodity (and pocketing
millions) when the *very* *same* software is available under the GPL ? It is
still better than selling software as if it was a commodity (and pocketing
millions) without offering the source code (as in scenario 1).
I think this is a fair (in fact, *really good*) business model, as far
as
providing freedom to /users/ of the db (as opposed to someone
developing apps on
top of the db).
I much prefer the business models followed by Redhat and Collabnet -
much cleaner, more transparent and just as successful.
Red Hat's business model is not comparable with MySQL's. However's MySQL's model
is comparable to Apple's (as shown above) and I think in those terms it is a
better model.
> In that way they had the *whole* copyright to the
> code, and as a result they did not need anyone's permission to sell
> mysql.
huh !?! how would that be any different with BSD ?
This is dealt with above
No, it is not !
At least with GPL they are
obligated to further distribute their changes when they sell it.
unless they buy a commercial license in which case they can do what they
want.
Yes, like the BSD license (again think commercial license as a /free-er/ BSD
license ...*snicker*)
> And since the new purchaser now owns the whole copyright - he can
> happily take it proprietary (of course what was already released
cannot
> be wiped out from the internet and forks can take place - but the
brand
> can well go proprietary. This will never happen in BSD licensed code
-
> no one bothers to pay for copyright of contributions and hence the
> contributors have their share of the copyright.
Quite honestly, maybe I'm missing something, but I didn't follow the
reasoning.
Everything (the good or the bad) that can be done with GPL, can still
be done
with BSD. The GPL just protects closing up of the source code.
you are wrong - If I buy the full copyright of a GPL'd product, I can
make it proprietary (as far as new development is concerned).
Wrong, wrong, wrong ! That is the *whole* point of the *dual* license. Yes MySQL
is *also* GPL but if you want to make it proprietary for new development you
purchase the commercial (a.k.a 'free-er' BSD) license.
The same
hold for BSD, but the danger is less, as very few BSD product owners
bother about purchasing the copyright from contributors. Very many GPL
people do this.
References please ? I have yet to hear of a legal way to purchase something
under the GPL and then modify and redistribute it as proprietary.
[...]
Whereas the original BSD licensed BerkeleyDB is now completely
controlled by
oracle, with licensing decided on a per client basis:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/overview/index.html
as far as I know, berkeleydb license is the 2 clause BSD license which
is not recognised by either FSF or OSI as a free software or OSS
license.
Like mentioned in the link above. The license is decided per client. The basic
download license is BSD:
http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/berkeleydb/downloads/oslicense-093458.html
The irony I was trying to point out was how Oracle can completely control the
license on a per client basis (read the first para on the link above or go
through the details in the link before that one).
Anyways, all that said, let me just say this:
a. I think the BSD license is a good open source license
b. I think the GPL is a /better/ open source license
c. I've tried to explain the reasons I think it is better. If you do not agree
it is a matter of 'perspective' not 'correctness' (ie: I have a (different)
opinion, I am not wrong).
cheers,
- steve
--
random spiel: http://lonetwin.net/
what i'm stumbling into: http://lonetwin.stumbleupon.com/
_______________________________________________
ILUGC Mailing List:
http://www.ae.iitm.ac.in/mailman/listinfo/ilugc
