RM> ... proprietary licences ... convey considerably fewer usage RM> (and other) rights.
Ironically, in the case of GPL vs. MySQL commercial license, GPL lacks one right that the commercial (you call it proprietary) license grants you - the right to incorporate[1] MySQL source code in one's product without releasing source code to said product. [1] Lawyerly pretensions aside, I find this a more generally accurate term to use than the word 'linking'. The latter fails to cover the spectrum of source code usage covered by GPL obligations. RM> This is the part that really annoys me about people who rant RM> about _others'_ application of the GNU GPL to copies of their RM> (the owners') personal property: They fail to notice that, aside RM> from other problems, their dislikes must logically apply "a RM> fortiori" to code received under proprietary licences. It's not that they "fail to notice"[2] that proprietary licenses are more restrictive than the GPL, it's just that they happen to realize that the 'freedoms' the GPL grants are not as rose-colored and strings-attached-free as initial impressions would have it. MPL style is more reasonable - it just doesn't have the cachet of GPL :-(. I was never religiously against the GPL, I just think it has been promoted out of proportion to its true flexibility as a tool for promoting open-source ideals. [2] C'mon, give others a little more credit. RM> Anyhow, we're done. Still. Sure. :-D _ 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]
