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:Forgive me if I'm wrong but

[Toonol]

Shouldn't they have that right? If I develop something and license it under GPLv2, I should be able to decline to ever relicense it to GPLv3.

Monty's laboring under a misconclusion

[Bruce Perens]

I met with Monty a few months ago and could not convince him that he could carry out his business although the MySQL server was under the GPL. He appears to be locked into some GPL FUD that MySQL got from a lawyer in service of selling the commercial license even though - IMO - you've never needed one to run the server, just a few of the client libraries.

So, Monty is now attempting to rebel against the GPL unnecessarily because of this false conclusion.

Or perhaps his real strategy is to kill the Sun/Oracle MySQL business, leaving him and his company in an advantageous position.

What makes this doubly strange is that Monty has been paid. Something around USD $100 Million for about 10 years work - a pretty good rate, IMO. Whatever he put into MySQL, he got compensated for. And thus I don't see that he has much moral standing on this issue.

Bruce

Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion

[krow]

Hi Bruce!

Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model. Pay-day loans exist as a business model, but I do not find that they are healthy for the communities that they exist in.

Richard is choosing to ignore the overall health of community interaction in order to favor a business model that is in direct conflict with "free software". This is what I find to be sad in his actions.

The fact that he is squandering his opportunity to further the cause of free/open source is shameful.

-Brian

Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion

[Bruce Perens]

Please note that I say nothing about the effectiveness of dual licensing as a business model.

Hi Brian,

You do, you just don't couch it in those terms. Many - certainly not all - of us need a business model to justify the production of Open Source software. Certainly that was the case for MySQL AG while Monty and you worked there. I very strongly doubt that you would have been able to operate the company while paying yourselves without the dual licensing paradigm which you and the company espoused at the time.

So, what you said was:

Dual licensing is anti-open source.

Actually, it isn't anti-Open-Source at all. It's pro-proprietary-software. You're confusing the two. It is also pro-Open-Source in that it effectively funds its development.

I am really scratching my head regarding your moral position here. It's the license model you promoted. You got paid a salary. You produced a work-for-hire and the company had all rights to it. You sold the company, and you got paid again through your stock.

IMO, what you should do is let Sun and Oracle do what they wish with the ownership of MySQL, as the GPL copy will persist forever and you have freedom to continue its development, and your customers can use that server with their proprietary software without a problem. Sun/Oracle can develop or sink their MySQL version as they like, and we don't care because our version lives on. Ignore politics on a mailing list, everybody has a right to carry it out and you can have another, moderated, list if you don't like it.

And please stop promoting the FUD that the GPL and Sun's rights block you and are somehow unfair to your business. It doesn't, and isn't, and you've been compensated so far beyond the merely "fair" that your protests sound inappropriate.

Bruce

Re:Monty's laboring under a misconclusion

[Bruce Perens]

I do not for work which I personally do (aka if you check you will find that I lean toward BSD).

Also, I believe people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce.

Oh come on. You were a company representative for how many years? You promoted MySQL to a great many different communities under the license scheme it had at the time.

And you're being self-contradictory. If people are free to do whatever they like with what they produce, why isn't the Oracle-Sun partnership free to do what they want with the copyrights that Sun bought?

What I object to is Richard's comments which I find counter to the notion at what is at the center of notion of the gpl.

I seem to remember the fsf suggesting once that developers assign copyright to them to block dual license strategies.

Richard would have much rather that Monty had donated the copyright to FSF 10 years ago. He didn't. He chose to make himself somewhere in excess of 100 Million dollars on the software through selling a dual-licensing company, and now he, through you, is complaining that he shouldn't have been allowed to do that.

Well, if Monty really thinks so he should get together some other investors and purchase the copyright.

You are welcome to do whatever you like with whatever you write Bruce, but I wouldn't suggest that other developers contribute their work to you, just so that you can change the license and make a buck off them.

Don't you realize how hypocritical this sounds? You made USD$1.1 Billion off of them!!!

Then, you sold the company, fairly, and Monty took a king's ransom in profit, and no doubt Brian took home some cash too.

I can't see that you have the slightest ethical stance to complain.

Bruce Perens on crack?

[gr8_phk]

The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it. You're bound to it anyway.

WTF? You're bound by copyright law when you buy a book. Nothing more, nothing less. What is this license you speak of? Where do I find it? What makes it binding? How do I violate it?