In article <[email protected]>, Alan Mackenzie <[email protected]> wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Stallman told the European Commission that > > > "the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable > > barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL" > > THis is nothing new. The FSF's recommendation has always been "GPL version N, > or any later version". This is a prime example of what happens when such a > recommendation is disregarded. >From the letter to Commission: Defenders of the Oracle acquisition of its competitor naively say Oracle cannot harm MySQL, because a free version of the software is available to anyone under GNU GPL version 2.0, and if Oracle is not a good host for the GPL version of the code, future development will be taken up by other businesses and individual programmers, who could freely and easily "fork" the GPL'd code into a new platform. This defense fails for the reasons that follow. MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product. 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. They aren't talking about the lack of "or any later version" here. Indeed, if MySQL were licensed under "GPLv2 or any later version", it would make no difference whatsoever in their above argument, since it would still be only Oracle that could sell commercial licenses. Slightly later in the letter, they talk about the GPLv3 issue as an additional problem that will make forking hard: Yet another way in which Oracle will have the ability to determine the forking of MySQL relates to the evolution of the GNU GPL license. GPL version 2.0 (GPLv2) and GPL version 3.0 (GPLv3) are different licenses and each requires that any modified program carry the same license as the original. There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. Today MySQL is only available to the public under GPLv2. Many other FLOSS software projects are expected to move to GPLv3, often automatically due to the common use of the "any later version" clause. Because the current MySQL license lacks that clause, it will remain GPLv2 only and it will not be possible to combine its code with the code of many GPLv3- covered projects in the future. Given that forking of the MySQL code base will be particularly dependent on FLOSS community contributions - more so than on in-company development - the lack of a more flexible license for MySQL will present considerable barriers to a new forked development path for MySQL. -- --Tim Smith _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
