"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."
But...
Once you go the all Free route, don't assign your copyrights to Oracle or the original MySQL branch.
Now, no one will be able to sell non-GPL licenses to this code base. Not the people heading this fork nor the people owning the original, dual-licensable, code.
So, if the fork does a better job of improving things than the original code owners, that is the code people will want.
In order to keep selling the code with non-GPL licenses, the owners will have to bear the whose cost of keeping the code improved. And try to succeed in selling inferior code at high prices. Good luck with that.
"Now if somebody wants to be a (real) slave, and law forbids it, then certainly this forced freedom is not really freedom from the point of view of that wanna-be slave."
And so, since perhaps some *may* want to be real slaves, (I don't understand this myself, but history seems to support the idea) any society which outlaws slavery (and rightly so from my perspective) must not be free according to what I gather your thinking to be.
"Oh, I'm not arguing against that. I argue that GPL is not really about freedom, it's about promoting the ideology you describe above at the cost of some freedom"... and that freedom it costs is... the freedom to deny the freedom you enjoy to others. (with respect to your code)
Do you know of another way, short of changing copyright law and making code not subject to copyright, to ensure the four freedoms for all users of software other than a strong copyleft play like the GPL? I am sure you would be hailed as a hero if you can come up with a solution. Many and perhaps all would love to avoid the problems that a strong copyleft creates if they could ensure the four freedoms without it.
"The only flaw is advertising that LGPL is less free than GPL, while from any non-ideological point of view it's the other way around."
This is a point of view issue. I disagree with yours.
I have a library which you want to use. Let's say I make it LGPL.
Option A: You believe in Freedom so you license your program which uses my library under the LGPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and release your code under some non-Free license. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.
Let's say instead that I make it GPL.
Option A: You believe in Freedom so it is no hardship for you to use my library and make your program GPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
In the case of the Options A, my choosing the GPL over the LGPL does not limit your freedom in any meaningful way since you want your users to have freedom with respect to your code.
Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. You cannot use my library and do this so now you must count the cost. Is there another library you can use just as well? If so, how has my choosing the GPL instead of the LGPL limited *your* freedom? You may have to pay for the rights to that other library though as perhaps that library's creator shares your non-Freedom views and demands that of you for the use of that other library. Or, how much time, effort, money will it require for you to write a similar library on your own or to have it developed under contract for you with you owning the copyrights when done? You decide one of these can work for you and do it. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.
Option C: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. After counting up the costs of the choices in option B above, (the GPL one) you decide that it is not worth it to roll your own and it is too expensive to license the alternative library or perhaps such an alternative library does not exist. You decide to use my library and make the program GPL. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
Now, you may well say that in option C here you did not have freedom. But your users do. So unless you only have one other user for your proposed program, from where I sit, more users have Freedom when I choose the GPL over the LGPL for a unique library. Are you asking me to *care* about your freedom? A person who does not care about these same Freedoms for others? When the only essential Freedom you seem to lack in your mind is the Freedom to deny others Freedom? Why exactly should I do that when I care about Freedom for all, not just for some?
'It's the same kind of forcing that eg. proprietary software uses: "You're of course free to not u
"It could be argued that forced freedom is no freedom at all."
As in people in countries with laws against slavery cannot be Free? Forced freedom as it were?
From what I gather, the FSF folks think that code should not be subject to copyright at all and then everyone would be Free. Since under the laws of many countries, code is subject to copyright, they designed copyleft to use those laws to undo the effects of those laws. Now, the thing is, how can someone who believes in those "rights", argue against someone using those "rights" in the manner they choose?
IIRC, the LGPL was designed as a practical matter. Pragmatism as it were. The thinking is document by the license designers. What flaws do you find in that thinking?
"What's not fine is pretending that forcing an ideological version of freedom on other people's creations is any kind of freedom."
Surely there is no forcing going on. We are not talking patents after all. Just write your own replacement and go your own way. There is a deal being negotiated in the market place here. Accept the terms or don't. I will trade you the right to use my stuff if you will trade me the right to use yours. And it is not even all of your stuff that I insist on the rights to in the trade.... right?
Since the US believes in "no taxation without representation" then all taxpayers must by definition be eligible voters if not actual voters. Since only citizens can vote, then it follows that all taxpayers are citizens and there is nothing to argue about.
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms"
It is just that it is basically impossible to ensure these freedoms for all users without restricting the ability to limit these freedoms. I could be wrong and if you know of some way to see to it that all users always get to legally enjoy these freedoms while not putting in such restrictions, I am sure there are a goodly number of people who would be happy to learn about it.
There is not doubt that with copyright laws as they are now, copyleft has issues. If you could ensure the freedoms of the users without the problems copyleft brings...
Program A. Good enough code. Free. (GPL) Program B. Better code than A at the moment. Non-Free.
Currently for some, Program is better than program B. because of the Freedom.
Later today...
Program B is put under the GPL as well and so is now Free.
Now Program B is better than program A as it is Free and currently has better code.
That is more the argument people make.
And it is even more nuanced than that here in the real world. Like which has a better development community? Which has professional level paid support available al la carte and via long term contract. Etc.
"The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack."
Are you sure the consensus you speak of exists?
That said, the secret sauce model denies the Open Source theory on the face of it and certainly is not in accord with the Free Software theory.
"The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things."
That may be the point of open source software. But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software. I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom. Complete Software Freedom. No non-Free Software needed by any software user. Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.
The idea with the Free Music Distribution Setups is not just for the artists who made the music originally but for DJs who would be willing to play the same or for other bands who would be willing to cover Free Music and do a Free set in their gig or something similar.
Since I basically write lyrics I know what you are saying about those who only write and don't perform and I know it will likely be more of a challenge for such people but it is time for the experiments to begin.
No matter how much the current industry big shots get in the way of laws and punishments it doesn't seem to work for them or satisfy them so we need something different. When you get a slap on the write for shoplifting a CD but can get 4 or 5 years in jail and a fine above $20,000.00 for making a copy of one or even just being in possession of such a copy, it is time for a change.
People are already doing the Free Music thing. I appreciate that and want to try and help them succeed. Artistically and financially. I think others who appreciate Free Music might want to join in. Hence the Free Music Push.
Where do you get the idea that musicians will not get paid for their performances? If fomr my postings, kindly tell me where so I can explain and / or improve the explanations.
And if you like the FreeMusicPush idea, please spread the word around.
No, I don't think so. I think if you legally buy a large number of copies of a copyrighted work in one region / part of the world, ship them to another region and try to sell them in your retail establishment there that they can get you. Perhaps someone who knows could comment. (I am guessing based on a bunch of reading and discussions over the years but I could be way off base.)
A democratic country that believes in openness could at least publish its own starting point for the negotiations so that its citizens could object to them if needed. Right?
If this is so, is it any wonder why the same people have issues with obeying the copyright laws?
Perhaps the big execs need to see to it that the only music and movies that get made and distributed by their companies are about respecting authority and abiding by the law and then their illegal downloading troubles will go away.
3. ???
4. Profit.
all the best,
drew
Re:Politicians always come up with a bullshit reas
on
Pittsburgh To Tax Students
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Is it time to go back to that "no taxation without representation" idea and a big way? I mean as in really... *no taxation without representation* - if they do not let you vote, they can't tax you.
And forget all the justifications what will be raised as to why you *just have to tax* those who can't vote.
"Nowhere is 100% safe but build a city below sea level and it is certain that one day it will go under."
I'm not going to argue with that. But i often wonder if people choosing to live in what we consider to be dangerous places do so because, to them, the benefits outweigh the possible negatives.
Asking those who choose to forgo those benefits and not take those risks to bail out the ones who make the other decision is another matter.
Slashdot Mirror
The governator?
"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."
But...
Once you go the all Free route, don't assign your copyrights to Oracle or the original MySQL branch.
Now, no one will be able to sell non-GPL licenses to this code base. Not the people heading this fork nor the people owning the original, dual-licensable, code.
So, if the fork does a better job of improving things than the original code owners, that is the code people will want.
In order to keep selling the code with non-GPL licenses, the owners will have to bear the whose cost of keeping the code improved. And try to succeed in selling inferior code at high prices. Good luck with that.
all the best,
drew
Basically,
unless you *must* have a non-Free play, you can fork it.
So, he is not likely to get any love from those who think non-Free is wrong.
To me, his belief that he *must* have a non-Free play is what is keeping him from forking it.
Just fork it and play totally Free already.
Now, I would be happy to learn of mistakes with the above thinking. Educate away.
all the best,
drew
Check out the Free Music Push
with compliments to the bard...
"Now if somebody wants to be a (real) slave, and law forbids it, then certainly this forced freedom is not really freedom from the point of view of that wanna-be slave."
And so, since perhaps some *may* want to be real slaves, (I don't understand this myself, but history seems to support the idea) any society which outlaws slavery (and rightly so from my perspective) must not be free according to what I gather your thinking to be.
"Oh, I'm not arguing against that. I argue that GPL is not really about freedom, it's about promoting the ideology you describe above at the cost of some freedom" ... and that freedom it costs is... the freedom to deny the freedom you enjoy to others. (with respect to your code)
Do you know of another way, short of changing copyright law and making code not subject to copyright, to ensure the four freedoms for all users of software other than a strong copyleft play like the GPL? I am sure you would be hailed as a hero if you can come up with a solution. Many and perhaps all would love to avoid the problems that a strong copyleft creates if they could ensure the four freedoms without it.
"The only flaw is advertising that LGPL is less free than GPL, while from any non-ideological point of view it's the other way around."
This is a point of view issue. I disagree with yours.
I have a library which you want to use. Let's say I make it LGPL.
Option A: You believe in Freedom so you license your program which uses my library under the LGPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and release your code under some non-Free license. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.
Let's say instead that I make it GPL.
Option A: You believe in Freedom so it is no hardship for you to use my library and make your program GPL as well. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
In the case of the Options A, my choosing the GPL over the LGPL does not limit your freedom in any meaningful way since you want your users to have freedom with respect to your code.
Option B: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. You cannot use my library and do this so now you must count the cost. Is there another library you can use just as well? If so, how has my choosing the GPL instead of the LGPL limited *your* freedom? You may have to pay for the rights to that other library though as perhaps that library's creator shares your non-Freedom views and demands that of you for the use of that other library. Or, how much time, effort, money will it require for you to write a similar library on your own or to have it developed under contract for you with you owning the copyrights when done? You decide one of these can work for you and do it. Your users don't have Freedom with respect to your program.
Option C: You don't believe in Freedom in this way and want to release your code under some non-Free license. After counting up the costs of the choices in option B above, (the GPL one) you decide that it is not worth it to roll your own and it is too expensive to license the alternative library or perhaps such an alternative library does not exist. You decide to use my library and make the program GPL. The users of your program enjoy their freedom.
Now, you may well say that in option C here you did not have freedom. But your users do. So unless you only have one other user for your proposed program, from where I sit, more users have Freedom when I choose the GPL over the LGPL for a unique library. Are you asking me to *care* about your freedom? A person who does not care about these same Freedoms for others? When the only essential Freedom you seem to lack in your mind is the Freedom to deny others Freedom? Why exactly should I do that when I care about Freedom for all, not just for some?
'It's the same kind of forcing that eg. proprietary software uses: "You're of course free to not u
"It could be argued that forced freedom is no freedom at all."
As in people in countries with laws against slavery cannot be Free? Forced freedom as it were?
From what I gather, the FSF folks think that code should not be subject to copyright at all and then everyone would be Free. Since under the laws of many countries, code is subject to copyright, they designed copyleft to use those laws to undo the effects of those laws. Now, the thing is, how can someone who believes in those "rights", argue against someone using those "rights" in the manner they choose?
IIRC, the LGPL was designed as a practical matter. Pragmatism as it were. The thinking is document by the license designers. What flaws do you find in that thinking?
"What's not fine is pretending that forcing an ideological version of freedom on other people's creations is any kind of freedom."
Surely there is no forcing going on. We are not talking patents after all. Just write your own replacement and go your own way. There is a deal being negotiated in the market place here. Accept the terms or don't. I will trade you the right to use my stuff if you will trade me the right to use yours. And it is not even all of your stuff that I insist on the rights to in the trade.... right?
all the best,
drew
Since the US believes in "no taxation without representation" then all taxpayers must by definition be eligible voters if not actual voters. Since only citizens can vote, then it follows that all taxpayers are citizens and there is nothing to argue about.
~;-) the eyes tell the story...
Not quite:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html
"Free software is a matter of the users' freedom to run, copy, distribute, study, change and improve the software. More precisely, it means that the program's users have the four essential freedoms"
It is just that it is basically impossible to ensure these freedoms for all users without restricting the ability to limit these freedoms. I could be wrong and if you know of some way to see to it that all users always get to legally enjoy these freedoms while not putting in such restrictions, I am sure there are a goodly number of people who would be happy to learn about it.
There is not doubt that with copyright laws as they are now, copyleft has issues. If you could ensure the freedoms of the users without the problems copyleft brings...
all the best,
drew
Nope. I am not making that argument at all.
Rather I say this can be the case.
Program A. Good enough code. Free. (GPL)
Program B. Better code than A at the moment. Non-Free.
Currently for some, Program is better than program B. because of the Freedom.
Later today...
Program B is put under the GPL as well and so is now Free.
Now Program B is better than program A as it is Free and currently has better code.
That is more the argument people make.
And it is even more nuanced than that here in the real world. Like which has a better development community? Which has professional level paid support available al la carte and via long term contract. Etc.
all the best,
drew
--
Join The Free Music Push
"The point is, that while there is public consensus on the use of open source for infrastructure, there is no similar enthusiasm for viral obligations nor is there any interest in opening up the value-add/secret sauce on the top of the stack."
Are you sure the consensus you speak of exists?
That said, the secret sauce model denies the Open Source theory on the face of it and certainly is not in accord with the Free Software theory.
Open Core Model and Software Quality - the Open Software Take
all the best,
drew
"The point of open source and free software is that it's supposed to be better than proprietary. It's supposed to win on merit, not restrictive licensing or "the community" trying to force things."
That may be the point of open source software. But I seriously doubt it is the point of Free Software. I have a vague feeling that the point of Free Software is Software Freedom. Complete Software Freedom. No non-Free Software needed by any software user. Ever. Perhaps I have gotten it wrong all these years though.
all the best,
drew
The idea with the Free Music Distribution Setups is not just for the artists who made the music originally but for DJs who would be willing to play the same or for other bands who would be willing to cover Free Music and do a Free set in their gig or something similar.
Since I basically write lyrics I know what you are saying about those who only write and don't perform and I know it will likely be more of a challenge for such people but it is time for the experiments to begin.
No matter how much the current industry big shots get in the way of laws and punishments it doesn't seem to work for them or satisfy them so we need something different. When you get a slap on the write for shoplifting a CD but can get 4 or 5 years in jail and a fine above $20,000.00 for making a copy of one or even just being in possession of such a copy, it is time for a change.
People are already doing the Free Music thing. I appreciate that and want to try and help them succeed. Artistically and financially. I think others who appreciate Free Music might want to join in. Hence the Free Music Push.
And one more list:
http://ccmixter.org/media/playlist/browse/44
drew
Where do you get the idea that musicians will not get paid for their performances? If fomr my postings, kindly tell me where so I can explain and / or improve the explanations.
And if you like the FreeMusicPush idea, please spread the word around.
all the best,
drew
Perhaps the jamendo folks have some ideas on solutions to the problem you mention:
http://pro.jamendo.com/en/product/background/offer
"Get background music for your shop or business"
granted they are speaking there of background music and not of a music event.
but if not, this is an area to work on by people wanting to play new games.
here is a small start:
http://www.kompoz.com/compose-collaborate/viewer.playlist?playlistId=1184&memberId=6509
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/99982
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/113052
http://www.jamendo.com/en/playlist/131695
http://www.joshwoodward.com/music/
http://www.bradsucks.net/music/
http://packet-in.org/wiki/index.php?title=Main_Page
http://ccmixter.org/playlist/browse/3464
enjoy
Seriously, If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free Music more.
Join the Free Music Push
Change has to start somewhere. Three is some good stuff out there with Free licenses on it. Give it some attention and some love.
drew
No, I don't think so. I think if you legally buy a large number of copies of a copyrighted work in one region / part of the world, ship them to another region and try to sell them in your retail establishment there that they can get you. Perhaps someone who knows could comment. (I am guessing based on a bunch of reading and discussions over the years but I could be way off base.)
I don't doubt that you say is possible or even likely, but I said "could" rather right? And they definitely should.
A democratic country that believes in openness could at least publish its own starting point for the negotiations so that its citizens could object to them if needed. Right?
This could have a large number of benefits.
"I refill my 4-color printer with Blood, Sweat and Tears (4th bodily fluid "redacted" as this is a family site)."
Wow! I refill with 3 dog night. 4th dog optional.
If this is so, is it any wonder why the same people have issues with obeying the copyright laws?
Perhaps the big execs need to see to it that the only music and movies that get made and distributed by their companies are about respecting authority and abiding by the law and then their illegal downloading troubles will go away.
3. ???
4. Profit.
all the best,
drew
Is it time to go back to that "no taxation without representation" idea and a big way? I mean as in really... *no taxation without representation* - if they do not let you vote, they can't tax you.
And forget all the justifications what will be raised as to why you *just have to tax* those who can't vote.
all the best,
drew
"Nowhere is 100% safe but build a city below sea level and it is certain that one day it will go under."
I'm not going to argue with that. But i often wonder if people choosing to live in what we consider to be dangerous places do so because, to them, the benefits outweigh the possible negatives.
Asking those who choose to forgo those benefits and not take those risks to bail out the ones who make the other decision is another matter.
all the best,
drew
Let's see... where is it safe and sensible to live:
Yes No ... Hurricane zone ... near Volcano ... Earthquake area ... Tornado area ... winter Blizzard area ... area subject to Tsunami ... forest Fire area ... Mud slide area ... Avalanche area ... flash Flood area ... Flood plain area ... other?
Where are the safe and sensible places to live?