Re: About GPL and proprietary software

From: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Doug Quale <quale1(at)charter(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: About GPL and proprietary software
Date: 2003-09-25 01:57:41
Message-ID: 200309250157.h8P1vfl26609@candle.pha.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general

Doug Quale wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as
> > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In
> > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action
> > (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible.
> > This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new
> > term).

Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you
have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a
GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search
and didn't see your name.

> First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is an error.
> As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual
> licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The FSF
> is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code.

I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are
trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as
possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_
because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together.

> Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many
> large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no
> legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no

If they don't use GPL code, you mean?

> one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that
> everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might.

If the FSF is anything like GNU/Richard Stallman, I am sure there is lot
of pressure placed on folks --- I have heard stories, but of course, I
have no first-hand evidence. Stallman will not even do an interview if
you call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux --- that's sounds like extortion
right there.

> License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions
> about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have
> questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of
> us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF

Well, I have never heard someone complain about the BSD license being
confusing, at least since they removed the "advertising" clause, and the
BSD folks don't want it to be confusing, nor try to extend the license
to other pieces of software relying on it, nor to be vague so the BSD
license can extend to other pieces of software in a non-predictable way.

> interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF
> interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find
> or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself.

My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because
it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the
FSF (and MySQL) like it that way.

> Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright
> holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise.

I don't have a problem with honoring the license intent of the GPL
software --- it is my code that they reach into and say I have to GPL
that bothers me.

Let's face it, most people choose a GPL license because they think it
_is_ the open-source license, not because they understand it --- if they
did, I am sure many would not choose it.

> If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.

If there something else better, I sure would. But gcc doesn't pollute
my work, I don't care too much.

The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be
open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where
appropriate, so we don't bully people.

I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you
something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't
really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in
public --- again, just a guess.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-25 02:07:21 Re: pgsql in Portugal
Previous Message Doug Quale 2003-09-25 00:13:26 Re: About GPL and proprietary software

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Bruce Momjian 2003-09-25 02:08:48 Re: Foreign key constraint accepted even when not same
Previous Message Curtis Stanford 2003-09-25 01:23:09 Good way to insert/update when you're not sure of duplicates?