Re: About GPL and proprietary software

JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
>>> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
>>> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
>>> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
>>> ironic?
>> except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the
>> non-commercial license.
>
> except that MySQL uses dual-licensing. The commercial license for
> MySQL (the one you need to distribute your proprietary code) is
> _not_ GPL.

And apparently people aren't getting my point.

I'm not even talking about the GPL, per se; I'm pointing at the
"ethical framework" in use. Look back at Marten's comment that Jan
posted:

This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of quid pro quo -
if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed
source, we are commercial.

In contrast with that, the assorted people involved in bringing us
such systems as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Perl, GCC,
and many other such systems do NOT expect that sort of "quid pro quo."
The various "free Unix" systems appeared because a whole lot of people
were interested in having something freely available. The variations
in licenses don't change that, whatever the back and forth blustering
may be between those that want to despise others over their licenses.

He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable:

"The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones
who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving
anything back to the community."

That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly
peculiar understanding of the word "community." (Presumably one where
the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and
employees of MySQL AB.")

In contrast, it generally seems to be regarded for typical "open
source" projects that having additional parties exploiting the systems
is, by and large, a good thing, and that benefits are likely to accrue
even in the absence of "commercial licenses."

But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar
burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB
are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source
projects don't see things that way.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")