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.
What I have is mostly legal theory. Appropriation of an unpublished manuscript would be prosecuted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in most states. You can look that up. Publication and lawful sale provide you an implicit license to no longer consider that material as a secret. If you divulge the ending of Harry Potter 8 before it's published, expect to be sued, even though you bought the book and a copyright applies to it, and you never signed an NDA.
Copyright law is the main law that protects books, but not the only law. How can you show that you have a right to posess the book at all, and that you had a right to purchase it? Because it is published. That creates an implicit license. Without it, you could be prosecuted, not under copyright law but under trade secret law.
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.
Yes. And this applies entirely to the MySQL server, and a TCP/IP client of that server is not a derivative work. So, I think that Monty's confused about the GPL and the MySQL server. Now, he could have a valid point regarding some MySQL client libraries, but IMO they are very easily replaced and appropriately-licensed replacements already exist.
Although copyright is the most significant law providing protection of the book's content, it is not the only one. There is an implicit license in the publication of a book and the lawful offer of that book for sale. Without it, you'd have no right to either purchase or read the book, and could, for example, be prosecuted under trade secret law.
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.
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.:-)
Cause increased carbon sequestration by bombarding the Earth with radiation! This also has the beneficial side-effect putting an eventual end to homocentric global warming.
I suspect that the family in question is no longer orthodox. I have repeatedly heard similar stories, in which people are happy to be members of ultra-conservative religious communities and espouse their intolerant philosophy, until the intolerance is inevitably turned upon them.
Yes, there is much room for reform of U.S. prisons. Of course all law is enforced with the threat of violence, the difference is that there is supposed to be a system of justice guiding that violence. It's not perfect.
Gosh, of all the stupid typos I could do. Please read that as "I do not advocate any form of violence against anyone." I don't even know how the heck that happened.
did he really do anything that negatively impacted your lives?
Yes. He pretty badly messed up the business I had at the time, because too many people took his threats seriously. Probably cost me a million-dollar deal.
It was only a decade between Michael Milken and Enron. And look how many kudos Milken gets for his philantrophy these days. 6 months in jail and they didn't take his money away.
I know a devout orthodox Christian family that suffered a suicide of one of its members. One of the worst parts for them was the way that the church that they'd been part of, and served, for all of their lives turned away from them.
The guy gave us grief for years and no doubt socked away millions on what he got from kiting their stock. He and Ralph Yarro (the owner) get away scott free, and let's not forget that besides the money there are the two suicides connected with this case: Val Kreidl Noorda and Rob Penrose.
Only when it turns to heat - as it all does. Eventually, people want so much of that cheap power that the heat becomes a serious problem. Just as carbon is today.
The difference between MySQL and the large companies you cited is that MySQL before acquisition did not have a significant product that was unavailable as Open Source.
Companies that aren't traded can publish financials if they wish, they just choose not to do so. Frankly, I disbelieve that any of the current crop of Larry Augustin companies are over the line of profitability. I fear that they might all fold at once, due to the common investor, and that would cast a false impression of failure upon the Open Source model.
Debian and co., are non-profits. I suspect that Patrick supports himself through consulting.
Slashdot Mirror
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:
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
What I have is mostly legal theory. Appropriation of an unpublished manuscript would be prosecuted under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act in most states. You can look that up. Publication and lawful sale provide you an implicit license to no longer consider that material as a secret. If you divulge the ending of Harry Potter 8 before it's published, expect to be sued, even though you bought the book and a copyright applies to it, and you never signed an NDA.
Copyright law is the main law that protects books, but not the only law. How can you show that you have a right to posess the book at all, and that you had a right to purchase it? Because it is published. That creates an implicit license. Without it, you could be prosecuted, not under copyright law but under trade secret law.
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:
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
Yes. And this applies entirely to the MySQL server, and a TCP/IP client of that server is not a derivative work. So, I think that Monty's confused about the GPL and the MySQL server. Now, he could have a valid point regarding some MySQL client libraries, but IMO they are very easily replaced and appropriately-licensed replacements already exist.
Although copyright is the most significant law providing protection of the book's content, it is not the only one. There is an implicit license in the publication of a book and the lawful offer of that book for sale. Without it, you'd have no right to either purchase or read the book, and could, for example, be prosecuted under trade secret law.
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
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.
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
Cause increased carbon sequestration by bombarding the Earth with radiation! This also has the beneficial side-effect putting an eventual end to homocentric global warming.
I suspect that the family in question is no longer orthodox. I have repeatedly heard similar stories, in which people are happy to be members of ultra-conservative religious communities and espouse their intolerant philosophy, until the intolerance is inevitably turned upon them.
Yes, there is much room for reform of U.S. prisons. Of course all law is enforced with the threat of violence, the difference is that there is supposed to be a system of justice guiding that violence. It's not perfect.
I do not abdicate doing violence to my unconscious.
Gosh, of all the stupid typos I could do. Please read that as "I do not advocate any form of violence against anyone." I don't even know how the heck that happened.
I advocate any form of violence against anyone.
I would, however, like to see him prosecuted, and be justly stripped of his riches, and to do a long stint behind bars. And Mr. Yarro too.
Yes. He pretty badly messed up the business I had at the time, because too many people took his threats seriously. Probably cost me a million-dollar deal.
Geez. When I die, I expect to be rotting meat. Period.
It was only a decade between Michael Milken and Enron. And look how many kudos Milken gets for his philantrophy these days. 6 months in jail and they didn't take his money away.
For how long?
I know a devout orthodox Christian family that suffered a suicide of one of its members. One of the worst parts for them was the way that the church that they'd been part of, and served, for all of their lives turned away from them.
Call me when the SEC goes after them. I won't hold my breath.
The guy gave us grief for years and no doubt socked away millions on what he got from kiting their stock. He and Ralph Yarro (the owner) get away scott free, and let's not forget that besides the money there are the two suicides connected with this case: Val Kreidl Noorda and Rob Penrose.
Only when it turns to heat - as it all does. Eventually, people want so much of that cheap power that the heat becomes a serious problem. Just as carbon is today.
The difference between MySQL and the large companies you cited is that MySQL before acquisition did not have a significant product that was unavailable as Open Source.
Companies that aren't traded can publish financials if they wish, they just choose not to do so. Frankly, I disbelieve that any of the current crop of Larry Augustin companies are over the line of profitability. I fear that they might all fold at once, due to the common investor, and that would cast a false impression of failure upon the Open Source model.
Debian and co., are non-profits. I suspect that Patrick supports himself through consulting.
Right, too far. We'd be looking for features closer to Earth's orbit. Never mind.