On Monday, 1 September 2014 at 05:26:52 UTC, Joakim wrote:
The problems come up when you get into the details of how to write those "freedoms" into legalese, for example, the whole dynamic linking issue. While they now claim that dynamic linking requires full GPL compliance, that's not actually written in the GPLv2 license.
I can see Oracle having the biggest interest in the dynamic linking issue, because MySQL's GPL license can be worked around by dynamic linking. But the issue is really trivial to understand: FSF doesn't want proprietary software to build upon free software, it was clear from day one. That's why in order to use MySQL, proprietary software vendors must buy commercial license and not try to use it under terms of GPL. And FSF has the same interest.
