Slashdot Mirror
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."
Did someone just accuse RMS of supporting commercial licenses anywhere near Free Software?
Just one random examples - I believe these guys' hardware uses licensed MySQL technology for internal databases in their hardware: http://arubanetworks.com/
Yes, there is. The problem RMS is pointing out, is if Oracle basically shutters MySQL after acquiring it, as the owners of the primary license they can prevent MySQL from ever having a GPLv3 release, or any further closed source releases to fund further development. MySQL forks at that point will be locked into GPLv2 without the option of closed source releases to help fund further development.
Ghostview used to have (and may still have) a dual-licensing setup -- the most up-to-date version of Ghostview was under a non-free license that could be purchased by companies that wanted Acrobat support on platforms Adobe wasn't interested in supporting, and the older versions of Ghostview were released under the GPL. I remember RMS commenting on this at the time, and his comment was "I'd rather it be all GPL, but if that's what the creator needs to do in order to support his work so be it."
Perhaps I misunderstand the article, but I don't see this as a new position or a deviation on RMS' part. I also personally disagree that it's "anti Open Source" -- first, on a pedantic level, RMS would say that the issue had nothing to do with "Open Source," rather it was about "Free Software." ;-) Second, and probably a lot more relevant, if software is licensed under the GPL, then it's licensed under the GPL. You're free to hack on it, distribute it, improve it, modify it, as much as you wish under that license, and any new work you add to that software under that license stays under that license as well. So what exactly are you losing?
Eviscerati.Org: All Hail the Eviscerati
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.
Groklaw has an interesting take on this, full of conspiracy theories.
See, for example, this comment, where PJ is talking about Monty, and says:
I have come to suspect he's a double agent. And I believe the beneficiary will be Microsoft.
Wow
RMS could not care less about open source. He only cares about free software. There's a difference and he will go to great pains to point out the difference if you engage him using the term "open source." If you are going to respond to him, the least you can do is use the terminology correctly. Otherwise he'll interpret what you say differently than what you probably meant.
Cory Doctorow talking about cloud computing makes as much sense as George W Bush talking about electrical engineering.
To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda. That's what the GPL is really all about. If you truly believe in software freedom then you absolutely reject the entire notion of software licensing.
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO. If you want software freedom, then there is only one license -- no license at all. Here's the software, you are free do do what you want.
The makers of proprietary software force you to agree to a massive, complicated license before you can use their products because they want to control and restrict what you can do. Let's not pretend that GPL software is any different.
Ah yes, the WTFPL.
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.
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.
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.
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
While I agree that RMS is an ideologue of the worst kind, you're completely off base here:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items?
No. But guess what? The GPL doesn't require that, either.
The GPL, like all copyright licenses, is a *redistribution* license. ie, when you *redistribute* the software, at *that* point you are bound by the terms of the GPL, as it is under those terms that you are granted the right to redistribution.
What you're talking about is a EULA, and I don't believe it's clear that those are even enforceable (and whether or not they are almost certainly depends on the state/province/country you live in). And certainly EULAs have absolutely no grounding in copyright law (which, as I say, is concerned with redistribution).
Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.
Are you serious? Maybe you should read the GPL before passing public judgment on it.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
-- GPLv2
"When I first heard Daydream Nation it quite frankly scared the living shit out of me." -- Matthew Stearns
Quite a lot of the GNU software is owned by the Free Software Foundation. Apache, Mozilla, X.org and Samba are owned by their respective foundations. OpenOffice.org and MySQL are owned by Sun.
The only major project on a typical distro I can think of that is owned by the individual contributors is linux.
The letter from Stallman and the others discussed two ways in which forking MySQL would be hard. One was because it is under GPLv2 without the "or later" option, so cannot mix with GPLv3 code. That a pretty irrelevant point, though, because the problem lies entirely with GPLv3's lack of compatibility wity other free licenses, such as GPLv2.
The other problem the letter mentions, though, has nothing to do with GPLv3 vs GPLv2. Here is how they describe the problem. I'll include the GPLv3 argument for completeness:
Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow.
MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest – the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.
As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.
Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2.
Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the "any later version" clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL.
I'm assuming that hell has frozen over, because the first argument is that forking won't work because the GPL does not let the forker use the dual licensing model to make money, and that letter is signed by Stallman.
Some of us would like to be able to support our development of Free Software directly through the software. Many of us support ourselves in other ways and don't care about this. But for those who want to get the support from the software, dual-licensing is a good way to do it.
It satisfies the folks who don't like the GPL, because it gives them a different set of rights in exchange for some cash. Both the contributions by other developers who follow the GPL and cash are ways of providing a quid-pro-quo for the original developer.
What it doesn't satisfy is the folks who want a free ride instead of Free Software, because you have to pay for a commercial license. And IMO that strikes a good balance.
Even RMS sees this. I think Brian's accusing him of being too moderate. :-)
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
The EU could make it a condition of the takeover that they sell either the Oracle Database or the MySQL Database to a third party. That sort of thing quite often happens in anti-trust investigations.
They won't be directly concerned about keeping MySQL free and open source, but they may be concerned that having two major database servers owned by the same company reduces competition.
Things don't work the way you think. The book you bought had a license, you simply did not have to agree to it. You're bound to it anyway.
Bruce Perens.
Er, have you actually read the GPL? From section 9 (GPLv3):
Erm, the GPL is a distribution license. You are free to run, modify, print and use as toilet paper, or do whatever as long as you do not distribute. If you wish to distribute the code, you need to follow the license and include your changes with it. I think even the biggest FLOSS zealots understand this. Why can't you?
As for this:
Have you ever bought a book? Furniture? Clothing? A toaster, microwave or television? Did you have to agree to a license before you could use any of these items? NO.
You don't have to with GPL code either. If you were to copy the book, or make knock-off furniture or clothing and then sold or distributed, you could likely be sued for it. If you sell or distribute GPL code, you just have to follow the license.
Said, "It's just like dice but it's got more sides And it tells me who lives and who dies"
What about this clause that is attached to the GPL in the MySQL code?
To call Stallman a kook and crackpot would be overly flattering. He isn't concerned with "freedom", he is only interested in pushing a personal agenda.
Huh? By that definition the same thing could be said about Thomas Jefferson, Karl Marx, or any person involved in politics that was considered "radical" where they really don't even believe in their own ideas.
I mean seriously... Say what you will about RMS ideas and disagree with them if you don't like them, but to say he only does the FSF and GPL for the ladies and money is retarded at best.
I mean if he's got an agenda what is is for? To get attention from forum nerds? The lulz?
"I am the king of the Romans, and am superior to rules of grammar!"
-Sigismund, Holy Roman Emperor (1368-1437)
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
Bruce Perens.
From what I understand MySQL is distributed under a modified GPLv2 license. The principle modification being the removal of the "any later version" clause.
Wrong. You made the same mistake with the Linux kernel ( http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1406005&cid=29765325 ). The GPL states that:
"If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation."
The MySQL source is released explicitly under version 2 of the licence and *not* "any later version". Let's pick a random MySQL source file and read the copyright notice at the top:
From ./storage/myisammrg/myrg_rkey.c
"/* Copyright (C) 2000-2003, 2005 MySQL AB
This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; version 2 of the License.
This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
GNU General Public License for more details.
You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
Foundation, Inc., 59 Temple Place, Suite 330, Boston, MA 02111-1307 USA */"
Older versions of MySQL weren't tied to the GPL2. You can read the statement from when this was changed at http://blogs.mysql.com/kaj/2006/12/22/mysql-refines-its-gpl-licensing-scheme-under-mysql-50-and-mysql-51/
It's reasonable to make mistakes, but to make them repeatedly in such a condescending, impertinent tone is outrageous. Please stop telling people that you can re-licence something under the GPL3 by virtue of the fact that it is released under the GPL2 - you can only do so if the copyright holder adds the "and any later version" statement.
The principle modification being the removal of the "any later version" clause.
Just checked a fresh download of the MySQL 5.1.40 source. This statement is correct – the random sampling of source files I checked do not contain the "or later" clause in the licence notification.
So, I'm an unethical evil person because I make money writing proprietary software. However, it's a requirement that MySQL be sold to a different big evil corporation that doesn't already have a database offering and that can make money off it, else they might not support it.
Sorry, my brain isn't big enough to hold the cognitive dissonance that is Stallman -- he gives me a headache.
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?
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.
umm...RMS doesn't advocate Open Source. RMS advocates Free Software
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
Actually, pointing out why Open Source misses the point of Free Software isn't pedantic or irrelevant, these differences are real and they explain why RMS takes the position you just pointed out.
RMS, as you rightly point out, understands that non-free software which eventually becomes free software is significantly better than non-free software that stays non-free forever because the former leads to eventually respecting our software freedom while the other can lead to our loss of software freedom. The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom. This too can lead to the loss of software freedom. So whenever someone licenses a non-free program, open source advocates have little reason to object despite how that chips away at our freedom (from the aforementioned essay, "This attitude will reward schemes that take away our freedom, leading to its loss."). Free software activists, on the other hand, lament the disrespect for user's freedom which motivates them to support a project to develop a free replacement so that everyone can do that job whilst retaining their software freedom. Finally, as for the GPL: RMS wrote the GPL with user's freedoms in mind. The reason we enjoy the freedoms you champion at the end of your post is precisely because RMS pays attention to all computer user's software freedom. Had he taken an interest in mere development methodology instead, proprietary derivatives might be far more common than they are.
Digital Citizen
The open source movement is interested in a development methodology aimed primarily at businesses, not framing issues in terms of user's software freedom. Open source proponents aren't taught to think in terms of user's software freedom.
Umm, no. The supposed "Free" software proponents like to try to make this distinction, but unfortunately it's bogus. You think some coder has business in mind as he contributes to Apache projects or zlib/MIT/BSD licensed projects? Haha, right... He has the users of his software in mind (which probably includes himself), and that's not any different than someone who is contributing to GPL software.
If you want to make a distinction, it's that so-called "open source proponents" realize that businesses may also be users, and they don't have a problem with that or forcing users to meet certain obligations with respect to modifications and distribution. That's all. As someone who agrees with the ideals of "copyleft" and the GPL, it might stroke your ego to think that your kind are the only ones who have the user's freedoms in mind ("think of the users!"), but perhaps its good if a little truth helps deflate some of that for you.
This too can lead to the loss of software freedom.
Software licensed under Free licenses such as MIT, zlib, and BSD can become less free no easier than can GPL software. I know this may fly in the face of the dogma you've always thought concerning how the GPL is supposed to be more protective of users' freedoms. In reality, if a company cannot meet the requirements of the GPL, we are no better or worse (in terms of the amount of public code) even if said company finds some BSD-licensed code to build off of and keeps their changes proprietary. Their alternative would be to build everything in-house, and it will still be proprietary anyway. On the other hand, many companies (that are legally able) do contribute their changes back to Apache, MIT, zlib, BSD-licensed projects every day (even if they have no legal obligation), as they do GPL projects. These two facts combined with the realization that code which has been licensed freely cannot then be retracted (there will always be a public fork) should be enough to make obvious to you that the popular assumption that the GPL is legally or morally better for users' freedoms resides on shaky ground.
The GPL is a decent license, although considerably more complicated than most people and projects need. It does have one notably interesting feature, although ironically (and arguably) it is related to user freedom in a negative way, which is what this article is about: the GPL can be used alongside a proprietary one. That's not something that is easily accomplished with other Free software licenses, but I don't consider it a bad thing. It's the one unique feature that really makes the GPL worthwhile in my estimation.
This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
is a quote directly addressing the proprietary software businesses. (Read the question.)
Since, for at least part of my life, I was a sole proprietor delivering proprietary software solutions, then, according to Stallman, I was acting unethically.
I also believe that he said I was evil. I will grant you that, in parsing English grammar properly, he might have said the software was acting evilly, and not me, but at the same time, I will have to assert that IMHO you are, deliberately or not, being obtuse about what he really meant.
I mean, it's pretty fucking obvious to me that he called me evil and unethical. YMMV.
The MySQL model was not radically different from how Aladdin Ghostscript used to be released. Stallman tolerated that licensing model as a necessary evil. So it would be non-coherent for him to be against the MySQL model. RMS is a pretty cohesive guy in his ideas. He is also more flexible about revenue creation models for free software than people give him credit for.