Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Well, that's what MySQL calls their license. Who are we to argue > with them? It's commercial. After all you have to pay for > it, right? :-)
This kind of sophistry is amusing, but not useful. > But anyway, how does a "commercial" license differs from a > "proprietary" one? Commercial: subject to commerce. For example, a CD full of only open source software that you have purchased. > By 'proprietary' do you mean closed source? The term "closed source" is basically meaningless, as its meaning is hopelessly confused. "Proprietary" means something that's not open source. "Open source" refers, roughly speaking, to a codebase that can and may be forked, by those needing to do so. Which requires source code access and a licence that permits code-forking. http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/essays/forking.html > If so, note that a lot of Delphi component vendors release the sources > to their products, but you still cannot use their products [usually in > a commercial setting] without paying for them first. These products > are _commercially_ licensed but are they "proprietary"? They're more certainly proprietary. You've just illustrated why the term "closed source" is meaningless and confusing. > Nor are their licenses GPL-compatible. This is because you are > required to make the source code to your GPL-code derived product > freely available even to people who do not wish to pay for it, > something that most of these Delphi component providers do not allow. No, you have _still_ not bothered to read the GNU GPL correctly, or to heed my prior corrections on this matter. If you've received a third-party codebase under the GNU GPL and _distribute_ it or a derivative work, then you must make the source code available for the cost of duplication to any party. Situations not involving distribution, e.g., a database that is used by outside parties but not distributed to them, do not trigger source-access obligations. This point seemed relevant since we were discussing databases. > I fail to see how any GPL-compatible license can be considered > commercial since one of its primary tenets is that you have to > allow anyone to distribute the sources to your product freely > (in the free beer sense). I'm sorry you fail to see. Point 1: Commercial usage of other people's GPL codebases without distribution doesn't trigger source-access obligations. Are you getting this point, yet? Point 2: You write an application that by its nature requires extensive aftermarket extensions and support contracts (say, the central engine of a more-extensive software framework). You specify GPL terms, and then you sell disks that include such contracts. Because of the copyleft, other competitors cannot fold your application into a proprietary product: You alone have that right (as copyright owner). However, at the same time, you glean benefits from other people being able to participate in your code's development. You make money from your extensions and support contracts: commerce. Point 3: You write a language interpreter and GUI-builder and issue it under the GNU GPL. You then write developed applications (interpreted code) that runs using that engine, and either (1) sell those developed applications under proprietary licences, using the engine as a runtime, or (2) sell those applications under the GNU GPL, with support contracts. In either case: commerce. > _Dual licensing_ is essential to making a business case out of GPL > products and in these cases, GPL ironically provides better protection > for the businessman than BSD or MPL style licenses - because they > essentially make the terms for using your source code so inflexible > (release source for everything that incorporates it to even the tiniest > degree) as to force people to pay for a _commercial_ license in order > to be able to release their product under a _proprietary_ one. Correction: It forces _other_ people to do that, if they wish to proprietise your creation, as their own proprietary product. > Well of course, that's why the phrase was 'uses code' (meaning > incorporates code), not 'uses <product>'. I think you're just > picking at nits here. No, it's a key distinction when we're talking about databases, in particular. > Also note that it goes beyond just _linking_, even cut-and-paste > counts as 'using the code'. But only linking is GPL-significant. > Now here's something to think about. If one were to build a Web > Service (a much abused term... tsk.) on GPL'ed code, could additions > to said code could remain closed source as long as it is not deployed > on machines outside an organization? Distribution is distribution. If you don't distribute, there's no source-code access. > What's RMS' take on this? Who cares? RMS is not a judge. His opinion is not relevant to the issue. > GPL's legal wording does not anticipate the myriad ways of code > sharing that today's increasingly distributed computing environment > allows. Neither does any other licence. What's your point? > Not that I believe ASPs (application service provider) are a > particularly good idea (reminds me of push - anyone remember that? > hehehe) but still, that's one way to subvert the GPL's agenda/goals... I personally think it's a bit melodramatic to call using a codebase in conformity with its licence "serverting" that licence. Please note: Licences don't have "agendas" and "goals". They're not human beings. They're legal documents. -- Cheers, "Transported to a surreal landscape, a young girl kills the first Rick Moen woman she meets, and then teams up with three complete strangers [EMAIL PROTECTED] to kill again." -- Rick Polito's That TV Guy column, describing the movie _The Wizard of Oz_ _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
