Brian Aker Responds To RMS On Dual Licensing

krow (Brian Aker, long-time MySQL developer) writes "Richard Stallman's comments on the Oracle Acquisition of Sun left me scratching my head over his continued support of closed-source licensing around open source software. Having spent more than a decade in the MySQL community, I feel that his understanding of the dual-license model is limited, and is at odds with his advocacy of free software. For this reason, I believe his recent statements concerning it need to be addressed. By pushing for the right to turn GPL-licensed software into the heart of a proprietary business model, he is squandering an opportunity for advocacy of open source within the European Union."

Comments

Re:So what

[Microlith]

Your trollish demeanor aside, the GPL is nothing like a standard EULA.

In fact, using GPL software is much like reading a book. The issues of copyright never come into play until you get it in your head that you wish to redistribute the work in question. Copyright says "no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder" while the GPL says "yes, under these terms. If you don't like them, Copyright says no you can't, go talk to the copyright holder."

Whereas proprietary software requires you read and accept a license before using it. Completely unlike a book.

Hopefully you will understand Stallman and the GPL better now, or I will have to apologize for feeding a troll.

You're confused.

[XanC]

The GPL is not an EULA. In your book example, you can buy, read, resell, etc, the book in question. Exactly what you can do with any software, barring (possibly) an EULA.

You can certainly do all that with GPL software without ever reading or agreeing to the GPL. Agreement is not required for use.

Other actions, such as making and distributing copies, are restricted by copyright law, and apply to books as well as software regardless of license. The GPL happens to be a license which allows copying and redistribution, actions which are otherwise forbidden by copyright. You only must agree to GPL when you take action that bumps against copyright law.

Re:So what

[benjamindees]

You are conflating a "usage" license with a "distribution" license. I agree that the former is completely inane. But the latter is a necessary extension of the concept of copyright, and the basis of the GPLv2.

Re:RMS doesn't care about open source

[vertinox]

RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software.

Well yeah... What is the use of have access to the source code when the license forbids you to modify it?

That's the different between Open Source Software and Free Open Source Software. I mean Microsoft releases source code to 3rd parties all the time but the strings attached to the code are pretty brutal.