New Apache License?

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 00:08 -0500, Richard Welty wrote:
> On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 00:17:01 +0000 Rui Miguel Seabra <rms at 1407.org> wrote:
> > Both statements contain conclusions derived from absurd assumptions.
> > As anyone with a little bit of logic bases can understand, from the
> > absurd any conclusion may be drafted.
> 
> explain what's absurd. i think my interpretation is fairly derived from
> mysql ab's own public statements:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

I know they intentionally mislead people with the 'commercial' word, but
YES you can charge for copies of MySQL without asking for their
permission, it is GPL software.

Go read http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Commercial

> > What MySQL AB did was:
> >    If you want to make a *Proprietary* application, then you have to buy
> > a special license.
> >    This change resulted that you _CAN'T_ make proprietary softwar
> > derived from GPL'ed Libraries.
> 
> NO.

Yes. This IS the change.

> the change with 4.1 is that the libraries are now GPL rather than LGPL.
> this means that from 4.1 you can't even LINK without being forced to the
> GPL (or else buying a commercial license.) derivation is NOT the same
> as linking as i understand copyright law.
Once the binary is used, the thing that is being used is the derivate
result of adding MySQL's libraries to your software.
Linking creates a derivate work. Try not using MySQL libraries then,
with the same code, and see if it works.

If a library is GPL'ed, then the software using that library must be
GPL'ed.

> it's a very substantial change, which will likely have the net effect of
> causing businesses to look at PostgreSQL and Firebird, neither of
> which are encumbered by this oddball commercial/free license split.

There is no commercial/free license split, only:
         a proprietary/free license split


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

> >    HOWEVER, of course you can sell (commercial distribution) GPL'ed
> > software.
> 
> DISTRIBUTE, not sell.

I'll grant you that 'sell' is a confusing word, it has a problem of
semantics, of assuming property, but pragmatically, it's the same thing
as distributing for a fee of 500€.

http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#SellSoftware

Please try to learn more about Free Software at www.fsf.org before
replying to this mail, or, if you want, I can try to hep you understand,
but you have to get yourself rid of those misconceptions.

Rui

-- 
+ No matter how much you do, you never do enough -- unknown
+ Whatever you do will be insignificant,
| but it is very important that you do it -- Gandhi
+ So let's do it...?

Please AVOID sending me WORD, EXCEL or POWERPOINT attachments.
See http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/no-word-attachments.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20040224/4928054b/attachment-0002.bin