Slashdot Mirror
MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3
munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"
"However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license."
How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.
that is what they did.
Do Or Do Not, There Is No Spoon, There Is Only Zuul. Everything in the above post is probably opinion.
Why not just stay with GPLV2?
They did. They set their license to be GPLv2 only.
We're going to have to do this with Adium as well. We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3, and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2 since it's the license they submitted with.
I completely agree with this in either case. v3 is about pushing an agenda within a license from what I can tell, rather than sticking to what it is, a license. It's their license, fine, but pushing their own goals through it makes it even more restrictive to use the GPL than it already is. It's frustrating.
I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.
Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I think it's possible you have no idea what free software is about. You seem to have a grasp of free as in free beer, but not free as in freedom. Saying "maybe here is the source and don't sell without my permission" has nothing to do with free software.
Fork because you have to FTP the very latest releases? Bit drastic, don't you think?
Forking a project is a weapon-of-last-resort. MySQL has never said that they won't use GPLv3, they just want to see the bloody thing first and decide for themselves.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
I don't understand why you would state in your license agreement that it would be covered by future licenses anyway. It doesn't make sense. I can see having your license say "GPLv2 or earlier," because you already know the language of the earlier licenses. It seems silly, though, for your license to state it will be covered under versions that you can't possibly know whether or not you will approve of, because they haven't even been written yet. This just seems like a common sense move to me.
"has become"? Maybe you should do some research find out what Free Software means and has meant for as long as the term has existed... What you are suggesting is not even close to the definition pretty much everyone else uses.
Because GPLv1 is more restrictive than v2. GPLv1 seems to imply that you cannot sell the code, but v2 clears up this misunderstanding. The 'or later' is attached to most GPL code because the standard license notification template attached to license says that the program may be distributed under the 'General Public License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version.'
Of course, this move does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from making a change to a version already licensed with the old wording from distributing MySQL under GPL v3 terms. Those versions already released have 'GPLv2 or later' moniker already attached and you can't change that now.
My blog
Let me see.... So, they're changing the licence from now on. But I can still download a GPLv2-and-later licenced one that just isn't the latest version.
So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?
You're absolutely right that what has been done can be lost. Lost to companies that use DRM and patents to take away our freedom. "Tivoization" is just a proof-of-concept. Without GPLv3, companies will start exploiting loopholes like that more and more, until one day people realize it really can be taken away.
Unless someone makes a specially modified MySQL for a closed device (TiVo?), redistributes the source code with the modifications but under the same license ("...GPLv2 or any later version"), and then you leverage that you have accepted the software under any later version (GPLv3 specifically) to legally force the manufacturer to release encryption keys and free up any patents he owns.
Yes, some companies may prefer to use MySQL or MySQL-embedded as GPL software and release the code, working on a service model for some embedded device; rather than paying for a commercial license. Look at Linksys and their Linux firmware, "Download GPL code here." They COULD have used BSD or Minix!
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, on December 22, noting that the license for MySQL 5.0 and 5.1 had changed from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only". As he explained, this was "in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3".
To be more clear, what they have done was **take away the option** for other people to distribute the code under a GPL version higher than GPL2. Under the old wording, the company has no obligation to distribute their code under GPL3, even after GPL3 is released.
MySQL AB could continue distributing the code under GPL2 and leave others with the option of distributing their derivatives of it under GPL3. So their concern is what **other people** might do with their code, and has nothing to do with MySQL AB being forced to do anything.
What they are actually concerned with is a forking of their project by a group of developers who prefer GPL3 over GPL2. Anyone so inclined could still create such a fork using a version of MySQL distributed under the old wording (including the most recent current versions, if they received the code under the old license). They just wouldn't be able to use any code from MySQL that came after the license change. It would have to be a clean break, with no sharing of code after the license change.
Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2
Sure it can. If you grant me the right to redistribute a derivative work from something you've written under GPLv2 or later, and GPLv3 says I can sell a work without providing any source whatsoever, you can't stop me from taking your work and releasing a closed source product using your source. I don't think "however it's written" means what you think it means. Even if you firmly believe that GPLv3 will do no such thing, can you be sure that GPLv10 won't? It's foolish to agree to license something under a license that hasn't been written and will be written by someone you don't know.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
okay ? now the interesting stuff: the FSF is just trying to keep up with teh evil(tm).
honestly, which responsible developer of GPLed software could like "tivoisation" ? if you program a software that is for everyone free to modify and some company uses it on their devices (that is like
or the novell-m$ contract: with GPLv3 that would be explicitly outlawed. and no one except novell, m$ and their customers could want such a contract - i am not even sure if their customers could want it.
after that, what is your problem with GPLv3 ?
they are just changing the wording, not the intent. Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude. exactly that is the point: "maybe GPLv3 wont be as bad as it seems". by removing the "or-any-later"-clause, they hinder anyone to try it. that is the point. of course, mysql is written by a company, so its not so bad - they have the copyright, they could make it GPLv3 whenever they want. but OTOH meaningful "community" projects like the linux kernel can never make it to GPLv3, even if later on it is clearly that GPLv2 has a huge loophole. that is the danger that lies in removing the "or-any-later"-clause.
"MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses... VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog..."
How does the VP of community relations announcing it on his blog qualify as 'quietly changing'? What do you want them to do, throw a bloody parade? Not everything is a secret plot to destroy OSS.
It gives more freedom to the code.
No, it gives the FSF a blank check, blank checks are not a good idea. You are *assuming* that future versions of the GPL uphold the rights you currently support and avoids overly restrictive requirements you do not support. You have no such guarantee with the "or later" wording, and you have little negotiating room when future licenses are developed. Basically if you only use a specific license you have bargaining power, you have rights.
I'm not sure you can change your license from "v2 or later" to "v2 only" without permission. If you accepted contributions to a project under a "v2 or later" license, then your contributors were placing their code under *that* license, and a change to a "v2 only" license would constitute releasing contributors' code under a license they didn't approve.
MySQL AB doesn't have the same issue because they own the copyright on all of their code (i.e. they don't accept contributions unless the copyright is assigned to them). They do that so that they can dual-license their code, but it has the effect of allowing them to change their licensing terms at will.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
While sticking with V2 is the right thing to dor for Adium, you may be ignoring the critical loophole in V2 that they are attempting to close.
Tivo has abused V2 in a novel way that privatizes their software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization Tivo is just the beginning of V2 abuse. (novell/microsoft anyone?) What happens when Trusted Computing is fully implemented? Tivo on a massive scale.
I'm saying this agenda benefits everyone tomorrow rather than sticking with V2 where the public benefits will come to an end through clever manipulations of GPL V2.
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
IANAL, but it would seem to me that given a program consisting of two modules, one GPLv2+ and one GPLv2-only, the result would be distributable only under GPLv2.
Distribution under the terms of GPLv2 would satisfy the licensing requirements of both modules, but distribution under the terms of GPLv3 would violate the license of the v2-only module. The GPLv2+ module could be used as part of another program distributed according to the terms of GPLv3.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
"I don't understand why you would state in your license agreement that it would be covered by future licenses anyway"
You trust the FSF to make changes carefully
How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.
Removing "or later" protects an author's rights, it makes sure that the terms of the license matches their goals, the goals GPL v2 embodied. "Or later" is a blank check, author's have no guarantee that the license will not go in an undesirable direction and embrace ideas they do not support. Removing "or later" also provides balance, it gives some negotiating power to author's when it comes time to develop that new version of the license.
How many times will the community be screwed by license chicanery before before you wise up: Tivo, Open Group X, XFree86/Xorg debocle, GIF, the Java Trap, Bitkeeper... Early GPL versions obviously assumed too much about reasonable community behavior. GPL v3 simply makes an attempt to spell things out more completely.
an ill wind that blows no good
They wanted to get around that ugly part of the GPL that says "and when GPL v3 comes out, this software must be distributed according to its terms."
Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...
Once you have that situation, the release under v3 does not 'trump' or efface the release under v2; it is just an additional license possibility.
In the case we're discussing, anybody who picks up the code to reuse it can choose to either release the result under "v2 only" or under "v2 or later". In the the first case, they're picking up the "v2" option of the initial package. Remember, the initial package is still out there in the ether, available under v2, v3, v4,
Note that this reading relies heavily on the use of the word OR in "... or later". It provides the choice to the person receiving the code as to which license they'll accept. If the original stipulation said "v2 AND any later version", we'd be in the sort of "v3 trumps v2" situation everyone seems to be worrying about - but if these issues ever came to trial, I seriously doubt any judge would accept as valid a release under a license that did not yet exist at the time the license was granted. (IANAL).
Read the best of all of Slash: seenonslash.com
I'm laughing right along with you.
It's difficult to overstate how strong the ramifications of that "or any later version" clause are. For all intents and purposes, including that clause when you license your code is the next best thing to assigning copyright of your code to the FSF, since it allows them to re-license your code as they see fit.
Of course, the FSF likes you to assign copyright to them anyway, but failing that, they booby-trapped the license with language which most people have not been aware enough to question. Some true believers like to respond to that with "but I trust the FSF", but that's nonsense: how can you trust an organization that doesn't exist yet, i.e. the future FSF. What happens when Stallman dies, for example?
The fact that the FSF recommended this language is, to me, an example of overzealousness which the FSF should be ashamed of. We see these sorts of tactics used by politicians and legislators all the time. It's disappointing to see an organization like the FSF, which seems to be founded on some real principles rather than "let's see who can grab the most power", stoop to these levels to promote their agenda.
No doubt FSF members and fans would justify this language on a kind of "means justifies the ends" basis. But the problem is that the language in question represents a centralization of power with no real checks or balances. No moral organization should want such a thing.
More than that. It's the language that typically accompanies the copyright statement, and is the formal indication of the license granted by the copyright holder. The recipient can choose which set of rules they redistribute under, but I'm not at all sure they can change the actual license chosen by the copyright holder.
To be clear, If write a program and license it under v2+, I think you can:
What I think you cannot do at all, though, is change the license selection in my copyright statement to say "v3", or "v2", or anything at all other than "v2+".
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
First, suppose you're writing project Z under the GPL and you do want it to move over to the new version of the GPL when it becomes available. Or that otherwise that you want to keep that option open.
Next, assume that project Z is fairly complex, and becomes popular, and receives contributions from numerous developers, not all of whom stick with the project.
Now, when the new GPL comes along, you have a potential problem: do all the contributors to the project need to approve a license change? Including all the ones you can no longer get in touch with? This is where the clause comes in handy: by submitting code under GPL2, they already [i]have[/i] approved a license change to GPL3, so you don't need their permission.
'Course, that can be avoided if you simply make all contributors hand over copyright of their contributions to those managing the project, or otherwise get their agreement ahead of time to make certain licensing changes in the future.
And then from a user's perspective: this clause increases what users can do with the program, it doesn't restrict users' choices. People can continue to treat the program as GPL2 licensed for as long as it's licensed that way, or they can treat it as GPL3 if there's some clause in GPL3 they find favorable. The only way it's potentially restrictive is that it allows derivative works to choose GPL3, which then prevents users of the derivative version from going back to GPL2.
Agreeing to terms that aren't yet defined is a bit odd - it's basically just a bit of faith in the FSF that makes that work, that whatever they do with the future versions of the GPL will be for the best. But what's happening now is people aren't sure that's the case.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.
Doesn't this specificaly prevent them from using GPLv3 as an option in the future? I mean only means only right.
OSGGFG - Open Source Gamers Guide to Free Games
Unless RMS is being a total hypocrite by not sharing the secret to immortality he's discovered with anyone outside the FSF, no one can really predict whether or not the FSF will one day change into something completely different, but retain the right to release licenses called "GPL".
In any event, anyone releasing software under the GPL whose primary concern isn't with the Public's right to use their software and any future revisions thereof is probably missing the point of the license.
Don't blame me; I'm never given mod points.
The FSF has contractual obligation to me, and I guess thousands of other contributors, that limit what they can do to with the GPL. When you donate software to the FSF, you get a signed contract back stipulating what they can do with it. It obviously leaves some freedom to the FSF (as seen with GPL3), but it is not a blank check.
It is abuse. It is until they give me, the person who purchased their hardware the ability to change what software it runs. It's my hardware. They don't own it any longer. They should have no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't run on it. None at all.
Do you think any airline in their right mind would buy an airplane that they were told they couldn't take apart or fix the software of? What happens when the airplane manufacturer goes out of business?
Sure, hardware keys are darned useful for security, and I think they ought to be allowed. But not letting me change them when I own the device is tantamount to stealing the device back from me after I purchased it. It's my piece of hardware darn it. If you don't want to sell it to me, don't. But don't sell it to me then tell me it really isn't mind afterwards.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Why would an airline allow anyone to install arbitrary, uncertified software on mission-critical hardware? And why would the vendor of that hardware have any interest in preventing the airline from installing whatever software they want?
But,really, that's all beside the point because GPLv3 would not prevent the hardware vendor from implementing cryptographic signature checking that ensures that only authorized code is placed on that device -- GPLv3 would only require that the vendor give the signing key to the airline that bought the hardware or, more realistically, allow the airline to use their own keys. That way, random attackers can't install random software on the hardware, and the legitimate buyer of the hardware can do whatever they want with it.
In short, your scenario has absolutely nothing to do with GPLv3. GPLv3 wouldn't disallow the benefits of code signing for safety-critical applications, and there's no realistic scenario under which the legitimate owner of safety-critical hardware should be denied permission to modify it by the license (other contracts, or even government regulations, may well deny them permission to do so, but that's a separate issue).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
In any event, you can read my longer post on this article (a related topic).
I'd like to see the Tivo guys put a sticker somewhere inside the unit that says 'warranty void if removed', and under that sticker have a one-way switching mechanism that a user could engage to accept the responsibility for running unauthorized kernels, which would disengage that feature of the 'BIOS'. The absence of such an opt-out mechanism is probably a deal-breaker for many potential buyers.
So use Myth TV instead. You can even contribute some of Tivo's modifications to the project if you like.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
If I write a kernel driver and it gets incorporated into the official Linux source tree, and I don't explicitly release copyright of it to the Linux kernel project, then they need to talk to me before changing the license on that code. But if I license it under the GPLv2 and allow the clause that the code may be distributed under "any future version of the GPL", then they could switch to GPLv3 without having to get my permission again.
GPLv3 is considered problematic at this point because of a few things the FSF is trying to do with the new license. They're seeking to prevent people from exploiting GPL code in ways that still manage to lock out user control (Tivo is the typical example - they provide the source for the GPL code they're using, but you can't change the firmware on a Tivo yourself because they have hardware that requires crypto signatures on the installed software) and they're seeking to limit the ways software patents can affect free software. (For instance, you can't write a piece of code, release under the GPL, and restrict people's access to that with software patents. I think they're also looking to prevent people from using a piece of GPL software and simultaneously attacking others' use of it with software patents.) Various people have various problems with these clauses - and while I appreciate what they're trying to accomplish I'm not sure it's entirely a good thing, either.
---GEC
I'm but the humble pupil, seeking to snatch the scratchbuilt pebble from the master's fully articulated hand
Everyone is very down on the whole Tivo thing, but I feel it is perfectly reasonable use of open source software. You take a mishmash of code and build a polished product that anyone can use with very little effort and no technical ability.
You wrote the software, you contributed your time and effort to it and that will be forever appreciated. But if I take some unsupported code (Unsupported in terms of if it doesnt work, then I have no way of getting you to fix it in a reasonable timeframe) and turn it into a working, supported product why should I not be able to then protect my work from plagurism. Why should I be limited to giving my product away for free as well?
Anyone who has had to work in the software development field professionally will probably agree that writing a product is the easy bit (and fun too). The shit bit is having to help users who think the manual is something YOU should read then tell them what is says. But these people do exist and are quite frequently able to throw money at other people so they never even look at a manual.
The reality is that open source software would still be a hobbiest only affair without the freedom that the GPLv2 grants to make professional, user friendly products and then protect that product from being ripped off by a competitor who can produce it cheaper as you have done all the polishing.
I dont read