New Apache License?

[Christofer C. Bell]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:17:01 +0000, Rui Miguel Seabra wrote
> On Sun, 2004-02-22 at 14:05 -0600, Christofer C. Bell wrote:
> > On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:54:40 -0500 (EST), Richard Welty wrote
> > > with MySQL version 4.1 (i think 4.0 is still traditional), MySQL 
switched
> > > the client libraries over to the GPL from the LGPL. this means that 
> > > any code linking against the client libraries must be GPLed if it is 
> > > to be distributed, or else you must buy a commercial license from 
> > > MySQL. the interpretation of "distributed" varies, MySQL AB's 
> > > interpretation is very strict, they even want you to GPL or buy 
> > > commercial licenses if you are only distributing within a business.
> > 
> > Open Source (by becoming incompatible with the GPL), MySQL has gone and 
made 
> > their software unfriendly to commercial developers that are loathe to buy 
a 
> > commercial MySQL license.
> 
> Both statements contain conclusions derived from absurd assumptions.

Those assumptions being?

> RedHat actually sells A LOT of GPL'ed software, so it is being sold
> *Commercially*.

No one is required to buy GPL'd software from Red Hat (and, in fact, they 
don't offer any for sale).  The software itself isn't sold, value added 
services are what's being sold.  So no, GPL software is not being sold 
commercially by Red Hat.

> What MySQL AB did was:
> 
>    If you want to make a *Proprietary* application, then you have to 
> buy a special license.

Yes, they're *requiring* people to make a cash outlay for a license when 
they've not been doing so in the past.   That's making it "less friendly to 
commercial developers."
 
>    This change resulted that you _CAN'T_ make proprietary softwar
> derived from GPL'ed Libraries.

Again, making the license "less friendly" (and sabotaging, in the process, 
RMS's goal of keeping the GPL "viral.")  It's also disingenuous to "sell" a 
commercial license covering the same source code that you also offer under a 
GPL license.

>    HOWEVER, of course you can sell (commercial distribution) GPL'ed
> software.

Yes, you can.  But no one is required to pay for it.  MySQL is requiring 
people to pay a license fee for software that under any other circumstance is 
Free (GPL).
 
> The license one program is distributed with has nothing to do with 
> its commercial exploration.

The licese a program is distributed under does influence the decision making 
of those that use the software (or in this case, develop applications that 
make use of the software).

> MySQL AB basically said nobody can use MySQL libraries for non-Free
> Software.

Again, defeating the purpose of the GPL.  I consider this a Bad Thing(tm).
 
> They also changed their license to be compatible with most php-based
> software by adding a special permit to link with PHP licensed under the
> PHP License version 3

Yet another restriction on redistribution that is incompatible with the GPL.  
I'm begging to think these "dual license" schemes are more bait and switch 
screw job than a legitimate attempt at producing commercial software and 
allowing it to be used for "Free" only under certain limited circumstances.

At any rate, what "absurd assumptions" were made in the text you quoted?

--
Chris

"Build a man a fire and he will be warm for the rest of the night.  Set 
a man on fire and he will be warm for the rest of his life."  -- Unknown