Re: [News] Richard Stallman Protects MySQL from Oracle
Alexander Terekhov
RMS should practice what he preaches
Submitted by peter13j on 20. October 2009 - 18:59.
I am really annoyed, that RMS uses any occasion to spread his dogmatism,
in this case on the expense on several thousands of Sun employees, who
are waiting to see an perspective for their future again. I'm not a Sun
employee myself, but have many friends there, who are depressed by
uncertainty. In between RMS is one of the prominent speakers at an event
in China, that is mostly sponsored by companies who never contributed
anything to free software.
reply.
GPL prevents commercially successful fork
Submitted by Anonymous dude or dudess on 20. October 2009 - 17:50.
Interesting that the author of the GPL (Stallman) tries to intervene in
a case in which the GPL would prevent a commercially successful fork.
I thought this was a feature of the GPL and not a bug?
Does this maybe show that "Permissive" licenses (BSD, Apache, etc.) are
better suited to foster commercial competition?
reply
regards,
alexander.
--
http://gng.z505.com/index.htm
(GNG is a derecursive recursive derecursion which pwns GNU since it can
be infinitely looped as GNGNGNGNG...NGNGNG... and can be said backwards
too, whereas GNU cannot.)
Alexander Terekhov
Summary:
"For those who have been reading/hearing Stallman for the past 10-plus
years as I have, this admission is shocking in the extreme. The GPL,
which is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of software freedom, may
deliver the opposite. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom."
LMAO!
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13505_3-10379280-16.html
-------
October 20, 2009 4:06 PM PDT
Stallman: GPL doesn't guarantee software freedom
by Matt Asay
The freedom to fork is the essential right of open-source software.
Until Oracle's attempted acquisition of Sun/MySQL, however, few realized
just how important it would be to retain the right to fork one's own
code.
After all, just because you have the letter-of-the-law right to fork
doesn't mean you have a meaningful ability to do so. So long as you're
not the primary copyright holder, you're always going to be second
place, with second-place commercial opportunities in the software.
MySQL co-founder Monty Widenius hints at this in his letter to the
European Commission, citing conflicts of interest between Oracle and
MySQL development interests. Such conflicts wouldn't be of such
importance were it not for the lack of external commercial appeal that
stems from MySQL's use of the GNU General Public License (GPL).
Even Richard Stallman, co-author of the GPL and founder of the
free-software movement, and not someone that spends much time worrying
about monetization of open-source software, gets this.
As noted in a letter co-drafted with Open Rights Group and Knowledge
Ecology International, Stallman notes that Oracle's proposed acquisition
of MySQL could hurt its development because the GPL reduces incentives
to commercialize the code:
The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the
development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and
dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several
years before another database platform could rival the progress and
opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before
any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and
achieve a similar customer base.
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.
[Emphasis added.]
For those who have been reading/hearing Stallman for the past 10-plus
years as I have, this admission is shocking in the extreme. The GPL,
which is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of software freedom, may
deliver the opposite. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom.
Now consider if MySQL were licensed under the Apache 2.0 license. MySQL
2 could arise, take the code, hire all of the developers, and
development of the open-source database would not miss a beat.
Could MySQL 2 achieve the same with the GPL? No, it could not, because
the copyright holder, Oracle, would always have a superior commercial
opportunity, because it has more rights than downstream users, as the
GPL leaves the copyright holder with a greater range of business model
options, and not simply support/services.
Apache leaves everyone--developers, users, vendors, etc.--on equal
footing. The GPL does not. With the GPL, the copyright holder retains
effective control.
That's one reason it has been so popular with commercial open-source
companies, but the Oracle/MySQL situation may prompt more companies to
consider using an Apache license so as to preserve maximum freedom in
case of takeover, hostile or otherwise.
Disclosure: My company uses the GPL but has been actively considering
areas to use Apache licensing.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and
legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging
open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice
president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops
open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET
Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow
Matt on Twitter @mjasay.
-------
David Kastrup
> LOL!
>
> Summary:
>
> "For those who have been reading/hearing Stallman for the past 10-plus
> years as I have, this admission is shocking in the extreme. The GPL,
> which is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of software freedom, may
> deliver the opposite. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
> competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
> European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom."
>
> LMAO!
A rather absurd diatribe apparently based on confusing "fork" with
"dual-licensing".
--
David Kastrup
Alan Mackenzie
> I am really annoyed, that RMS uses any occasion to spread his dogmatism,
> in this case on the expense on several thousands of Sun employees, who
> are waiting to see an perspective for their future again. I'm not a Sun
> employee myself, but have many friends there, who are depressed by
> uncertainty. In between RMS is one of the prominent speakers at an event
> in China, that is mostly sponsored by companies who never contributed
> anything to free software.
> reply.
It's not RMS who's holding up Oracle's and Sun's takeover. It's the EU
competition regulators. What RMS has written to these regulators will have,
at most, a tiny effect on their decision. Your annoyance is probably
genuine, but I suspect it's more to do with RMS in general than this
particular letter of his. My sympathy goes out to all Sun employees, and
I hope things work out for them.
> regards,
> alexander.
--
Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Germany).
Alexander Terekhov
Dak, dak, dak. 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"
http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf
Read it again, silly dak:
THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
I've been telling all along that the GPL is unlawful anticompetitive
conspiracy blatantly violating Article 81 EC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law#Collusion_and_cartels
Thanks a bunch to Richard Stallman for openly admiting it.
Rjack
As I've said a thousand times, no matter how Free Softies try to spin,
spin and spin they will never be able to re-define the meaning of "free".
The long socialist political campaign of the Free Software Foundation
(and its history of astroturfing misinformation and outright lies) is
rapidly crumbling. Goodbye Moglen, Stallman and PJ -- and good
riddance to all the lies. Soon open source software will begin to
realize its true potential.
Sincerely,
Rjack
Alan Mackenzie
> 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.
> I've been telling all along that the GPL is unlawful anticompetitive
> conspiracy blatantly violating Article 81 EC.
I sure if that were the case, Mrs. Kroes would be onto it. She's pretty
sharp. Or maybe just nobody's complained about it yet. Why don't you
submit a complaint, Alex?
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>>
>> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> > LOL!
>> >
>> > Summary:
>> >
>> > "For those who have been reading/hearing Stallman for the past 10-plus
>> > years as I have, this admission is shocking in the extreme. The GPL,
>> > which is supposed to be the ultimate guarantor of software freedom, may
>> > deliver the opposite. Because of its control-freak urges, it can stymie
>> > competition, which is presumably why Stallman is now calling on the
>> > European Commission to grant what his license couldn't: freedom."
>> >
>> > LMAO!
>>
>> A rather absurd diatribe apparently based on confusing "fork" with
>> "dual-licensing".
>
> Dak, dak, dak. 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"
>
> http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf
>
> Read it again, silly dak:
>
> THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
> BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is
being phased out in the marketplace, it is obviously a concern.
> I've been telling all along that the GPL is unlawful anticompetitive
> conspiracy blatantly violating Article 81 EC.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Community_competition_law#Collusion_and_cartels
Now you are losing it.
> Thanks a bunch to Richard Stallman for openly admiting it.
I mean, _really_ losing it.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> > THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
> > BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
>
> Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
> licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is
Does the BSD/MIT/Apache... suffer from that "problem"?
Apart from that, "or later" is utter legal nonsense because absent
sublicensing, the "later" license terms may come into effect only by the
affirmative act of the copyright holder and for that nobody needs "or
later" clause.
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> I sure if that were the case, Mrs. Kroes would be onto it. She's pretty
> sharp. Or maybe just nobody's complained about it yet. Why don't you
> submit a complaint, Alex?
How about if I'll just drop her a link to Moglens talk at UOC
to point out that the GPL is anti-market (against market/competition) a
la Rosa Luxemburg and Karl Marx.
Would that count as a complaint in your eyes, Alan?
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> particular letter of his. My sympathy goes out to all Sun employees, and
> I hope things work out for them.
Well,
http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-business/sun-microsystems-to-slash-3000-jobs-20091021-h7e7.html
(Sun Microsystems Slashing Up to 3,000 Jobs)
"They are the latest in a series of job cuts at the server and software
maker, whose prolonged financial troubles led to the $7.4 billion deal
with Oracle in April.
Oracle's purchase of Sun is being held up by European antitrust
authorities, who are concerned about possible harm to the database
software market."
Ha, regarding "software market"...
Why don't the morons at THE ASSOCIATED PRESS know that
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
"�Market�
It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
users in general, as a �market.�"
<???>
Care to share your views on that, Alan?
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> > THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
>> > BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
>>
>> Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
>> licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is
>
> Does the BSD/MIT/Apache... suffer from that "problem"?
Most certainly. You can't just move code from BSD with advertising
clause into BSD without it.
> Apart from that, "or later" is utter legal nonsense because absent
> sublicensing, the "later" license terms may come into effect only by
> the affirmative act of the copyright holder and for that nobody needs
> "or later" clause.
Nonsense. The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the
copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
<one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
[...]
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
>
> Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>
> > David Kastrup wrote:
> > [...]
> >> > THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
> >> > BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
> >>
> >> Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
> >> licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is
> >
> > Does the BSD/MIT/Apache... suffer from that "problem"?
>
> Most certainly. You can't just move code from BSD with advertising
> clause into BSD without it.
Can one "combine" code, you idiot? Are you saying that one can't
"combine" Old BSD with New BSD licensed code?
Contrast it with
http://www.keionline.org/ec-mysql
"There are fundamental and unavoidable legal obstacles to combining code
from programs licensed under the different GPL versions. "
Yeah...
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#AllCompatibility
"How are the various GNU licenses compatible with each other?"
Compatibility matrix.
Uh morons.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> Nonsense. The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the
> copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
Go to doctor, idiot dak.
One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
property license under unknown/unspecified/future/later terms. A promise
to make a promise is not enforceable.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nd&vol=20000132&invol=1
"THE COURT: -- it sounded like it was all mixed together, all jumbled,
mumbled and that we needed to talk to Mr. Thorson. Now nobody ever told
me that Mr. Thorson ever agreed, so it sounds like a promise to make a
promise, which of course, the law doesn't recognize as an enforceable
contract. A contract in the future is not a contract. Horn book law. . .
."
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> Nonsense. The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the
>> copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
>
> Go to doctor, idiot dak.
>
> One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
> property license under unknown/unspecified/future/later terms.
The terms are
This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version.
There is nothing unknown or unspecified about it. Don't forget that the
GPL is a license, not a contract. You get a set of permissions you may
use, and the set of permissions includes the option to use later terms,
once they are published. It is an option which the recipient may or may
not make use of.
> A promise to make a promise is not enforceable.
That's not a promise.
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=nd&vol=20000132&invol=1
>
> "THE COURT: -- it sounded like it was all mixed together, all jumbled,
> mumbled and that we needed to talk to Mr. Thorson. Now nobody ever
> told me that Mr. Thorson ever agreed, so it sounds like a promise to
> make a promise, which of course, the law doesn't recognize as an
> enforceable contract. A contract in the future is not a contract. Horn
> book law. . . ."
Your capacity to dig up utterly unrelated quotes is uncontested.
--
David Kastrup
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> particular letter of his. My sympathy goes out to all Sun employees, and
>> I hope things work out for them.
> Well,
> http://news.brisbanetimes.com.au/breaking-news-business/sun-microsystems-to-slash-3000-jobs-20091021-h7e7.html
> (Sun Microsystems Slashing Up to 3,000 Jobs)
> "They are the latest in a series of job cuts at the server and software
> maker, whose prolonged financial troubles led to the $7.4 billion deal
> with Oracle in April.
That doesn't make me happy. We could have long discussions about the merits
and demerits of capitalism. This isn't really the right forum for that.
> Oracle's purchase of Sun is being held up by European antitrust
> authorities, who are concerned about possible harm to the database
> software market."
Yes. They're doing their job.
> Ha, regarding "software market"...
[ .... ]
> It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
> users in general, as a ?market.?"
> <???>
> Care to share your views on that, Alan?
No.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[...]
> GPL is a license, not a contract.
Yeah.
LOL.
Heck, why are you, German GNUtian dak, still pretending to be in denial
regarding the judgments of the courts in Munich and Frankfurt about
contractual status of the GPL, stupid dak?
(Munich)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
(Frankfurt)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
This was pretty much the only *uncontested* fact in both cases, silly
dak.
Please elaborate.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
> [...]
>> GPL is a license, not a contract.
>
> Yeah.
>
> LOL.
>
> Heck, why are you, German GNUtian dak, still pretending to be in denial
> regarding the judgments of the courts in Munich and Frankfurt about
> contractual status of the GPL, stupid dak?
Sigh. License adherence is held to the same standards as contract
adherence. The difference is that
a) it is optional for the licensee to make use of the license
b) invalid terms don't invalidate the rest of the license even without
salvatory clauses
c) contractual penalty damages (Vertragsstrafen) can't be claimed
As long as those particulars are not involved, the license text is
interpreted like a contract, namely with the standards of contract law.
Without being one.
If I feed dog food to a cat, that does not make the cat a dog. If the
food has pieces of razor in it, it is not a valid defense for the
producer that I was not supposed to feed a cat with it. Since for the
relevant problem, the standards of cat and dog food can be considered
sufficiently similar.
> This was pretty much the only *uncontested* fact in both cases, silly
> dak.
>
> Please elaborate.
Why should the defendant contest having a license? That would not help.
--
David Kastrup
chrisv
>>
>> One just can't be a party (licensor or licensee) to an intellectual
>> property license under unknown/unspecified/future/later terms.
God damn, you are a stupid POS.
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[... Stallmanism ...]
> > It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
> > users in general, as a ?market.?"
>
> > <???>
>
> > Care to share your views on that, Alan?
>
> No.
Why don't you make use of your freedom of speech other than not
speaking?
What is the reason for No, Alan?
Please elaborate.
chrisv
>Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> writes:
>>
>> Apart from that, "or later" is utter legal nonsense because absent
>> sublicensing, the "later" license terms may come into effect only by
>> the affirmative act of the copyright holder and for that nobody needs
>> "or later" clause.
Idiot.
>Nonsense. The "affirmative act" is accomplished in advance when the
>copyright holder acts according to the recommendation:
>
> How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs
>
> If you develop a new program, and you want it to be of the greatest
>possible use to the public, the best way to achieve this is to make it
>free software which everyone can redistribute and change under these terms.
>
> To do so, attach the following notices to the program. It is safest
>to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively
>state the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least
>the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
>
> <one line to give the program's name and a brief idea of what it does.>
> Copyright (C) <year> <name of author>
>
> This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
> it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
> the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
> (at your option) any later version.
>
>[...]
It's "real difficult" to understand that plain language, eh?
Sheesh, these anti-freedom trolls are incredibly dishonest and stupid.
--
Question: Are you actually claiming that because linux supports NTFS
and VFAT it should also defrag them?
Hadron Quark's answer: Yes.
David Kastrup
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
> [... Stallmanism ...]
>
>> > It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
>> > users in general, as a ?market.?"
>>
>> > <???>
>>
>> > Care to share your views on that, Alan?
>>
>> No.
>
> Why don't you make use of your freedom of speech other than not
> speaking?
I suppose because he does not think he has anything worthwhile to
contribute. And so he chooses not to contribute it.
The concept may seem alien to you, but I assure you that it is not
unheard of in the civilized world.
Apropos: Mahatma Gandhi once was asked what he thought of Western
civilization. His reply was "I think it would be a good idea."
--
David Kastrup
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [... Stallmanism ...]
>> > It is misleading to describe the users of free software, or the software
>> > users in general, as a ?market.?"
>> > <???>
>> > Care to share your views on that, Alan?
>> No.
> Why don't you make use of your freedom of speech other than not
> speaking?
Well, it's freedom of speech, which also includes the freedom not to
speak, as you have clearly noticed.
> What is the reason for No, Alan?
I've got things to do, a life to get on with, and a discussion about words,
in particular this context for the word "market" would be inane and vacuous.
> Please elaborate.
I'm sorry indeed about the plight of Sun and your friends there with an
uncertain future. However, the political and philosophical parts of the
FSF websites have no direct responsibility for Sun's current predicament.
Their sole "blameworthiness" is that they have inspired free software which
is in competition with Sun's systems.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[... "the GPL is not a contract" ...]
Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
(Munich)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_muenchen_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_munich_gpl.pdf
(Frankfurt)
http://www.jbb.de/urteil_lg_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
http://www.jbb.de/judgment_dc_frankfurt_gpl.pdf
Hey GNUtian Alan Mackenzie (Nuremberg, Bavaria, Germany) would *YOU*
please help your fellow GNUtian dak to understand that fact?
Please.
David Kastrup
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
> [... "the GPL is not a contract" ...]
>
> Both courts unequivocally said that the GPL is a contract.
How comes you snip everything relevant from my reply before stomping
your feet again? As I already said: contract law applies since licenses
are held to the same standard. There are differences which I listed.
You'll find that the courts did not rule on the side of "contract"
rather than "license" where any of those particular differences was
concerned. Sloppy language does not set legal precedence as long as it
does not make a difference regarding the _ruling_.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Alan Mackenzie wrote:
[...]
> I've got things to do, a life to get on with, and a discussion about words,
You didn't sound like a guy having things to do, a life to get on with,
when you posted
-----
PJ, please stop feeding the troll
Authored by: AMackenzie on Tuesday, September 22 2009 @ 02:11 PM EDT
PJ,
Why do you keep quoting Alex Terekhov as though he were some sort of
authority?
(That's both a straight and a rhetorical question).
That poster is a plain troll and a spammer; intelligent, devious,
abusive, foul-mouthed, patronising, and allround thoroughly
objectionable. Together with several anonymous posters, he has
destroyed the gnu-misc-discuss mailing list. The archive of the
mailing list is at
http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/
Not so long ago, this list was vibrant and interesting, with
discussions over a broad range of subjects, and its loss is a
loss indeed.
Whilst the validity and bounds of the GPL are certainly on topic for
gnu-misc-discuss, these posters started foghorning it on the list,
perhaps two or three years ago. The plain nastiness caused bona-fide
posters to unsubscribe, and the list is now dead. Perhaps that was
the intention. Arguments that they are fouling up somebody else's
patch and trespassing on FSF resources are ignored, as are other
appeals to decency.
When the FSF created the mailing list it also created a usenet
gateway to it, but mistakenly decided not to make the corresponding
newsgroup moderated. Those were the early days of forums, and the
people setting them up naively assumed that other posters would be,
in the main, convivial and decent. It is through Usenet that these
posters post.
PJ, every time you mention Terekhov as though he were in some way
important, you'll be sending him a gratifying tingle, encouraging
him to carry on with his spamming and trolling. This is most
galling to those of us who have expended countless hours
neutralising his FUD and trying to save the gnu-misc-discuss
list.
Please, don't feed the trolls. Not even this one.
-----
What happened that you've changed, Alan?
Hadron
All immaterial of course since companies just steal the code, rearrange
it a bit and close source it. Sad but that's life.
Alexander Terekhov
David Kastrup wrote:
[... "There are differences which I listed" ...]
Go to doctor, with all the differences which you listed, dak.
BTW... Who's paying for your health care insurance, dak?
If you you're going to trigger "freedom of speech" now just like Alan,
please explain why.
Tim Smith
wrote:
> > Dak, dak, dak. 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"
> >
> > http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf
> >
> > Read it again, silly dak:
> >
> > THE LACK OF A MORE FLEXIBLE LICENSE FOR MYSQL WILL PRESENT CONSIDERABLE
> > BARRIERS TO A NEW FORKED DEVELOPMENT PATH FOR MYSQL.
>
> Uh, you conveniently forgot to mention that this is about MySQL being
> licensed GPLv2 _only_ (not as common, GPLv2 or later). Since GPLv2 is
> being phased out in the marketplace, it is obviously a concern.
Read it again. It says that the "others can fork" argument fails for
multiple reasons. The first one discussed is that the revenue to fund
MySQL development comes from commercial license sales, which a forked
version would not have, since only Oracle will be able to sell
commercial licenses.
The one you mention, incompatibility with GPLv3, is the second reason
discussed.
--
--Tim Smith
Tim Smith
wrote:
> In gnu.misc.discuss Alexander Terekhov <tere...@web.de> 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
Alan Mackenzie
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
> [...]
>> I've got things to do, a life to get on with, and a discussion about words,
> You didn't sound like a guy having things to do, a life to get on with,
> when you posted
Care to share your views on that, Alex? You've quoted it, in full, twice
now, but without comment. That's a rather strange thing to do.
> PJ,
> http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/gnu-misc-discuss/
No change. I feel the gnu-misc...@gnu.org was a list worth
preserving. By contrast, there is nothing to be gained by a silly
discussion about whether the use of free software is a "market".
Sometimes, when you troll, you are playing more than just a harmless
game - there can be consequences.
Rjack
Rjack
>> What happened that you've changed, Alan?
>
> No change. I feel the gnu-misc...@gnu.org was a list worth
> preserving. By contrast, there is nothing to be gained by a silly
> discussion about whether the use of free software is a "market".
Gosh Alan, I missed your coronation as Emperor and moderator of
Usenet! ROFL
> Sometimes, when you troll, you are playing more than just a
> harmless game - there can be consequences.
Sincerly,
Rjack
David Kastrup
> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>
>>> What happened that you've changed, Alan?
>>
>> No change. I feel the gnu-misc...@gnu.org was a list worth
>> preserving. By contrast, there is nothing to be gained by a silly
>> discussion about whether the use of free software is a "market".
>
> Gosh Alan, I missed your coronation as Emperor and moderator of
> Usenet! ROFL
Just because you like crapping in the street, that does not make your
standards that of everybody else. Freedom of speech means that the
responsibility lies with the speaker alone, not that there is no
responsibility.
--
David Kastrup
Alexander Terekhov
Guess why "the community should support the Oracle deal"?
Because "opponents are trashing the GPL [PDF] and calling it a source of
"infection" in their FUD submission to the EU Commission" that's why!
Impeccable GNUtian "logic".
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392
("Reasons I Believe the Community Should Support the Oracle-Sun Deal -
Updated 2Xs")
LOL.
Alexander Terekhov
"Stallman admits GPL flawed, proprietary licensing needed to pay for
MySQL development
Posted by Ed Burnette @ 12:14 am
Categories: Commercial, Community, General, Licenses, Linux
Tags: GPL, MySQL, Richard Stallman, Stallman, Tools & Techniques...,
Open Source, Databases, Management, Enterprise Software, Software
Software freedom activist Richard Stallman and others are trying to
block Oracle�s acquisition of MySQL. Why? Because MySQL is covered by
the GNU Public License (GPL), and the purchase has exposed a flaw in the
GPL that Stallman says will cause a �major setback� to the development
of the free database if the acquisition is allowed to go through.
Under the GPL, the copyright holder (usually the author) has special
privileges that no one else has: they can use the code in a proprietary
product. In an open letter to the European Commission, Stallman admits
that revenue from this proprietary licensing is necessary to fund
development for the free version (emphasis added):
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.... 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 MSQL
PLATFORM.
The letter was signed by Richard Stallman and representatives from
Knowledge Ecology International and the Open Rights Group.
Stallman�s position is exceptional when viewed against his long history
of evangelizing Free (as in speech) software as the �morally correct
choice� that trumps all other considerations. Compare the letter above
with this sermon on his gnu.org web site:
Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free
software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the
ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage
over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while
proprietary developers cannot use it.... Proprietary software
developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage,
will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the
GPL-covered collection.... But we should not listen to these
temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together.
We free software developers should support one another. By releasing
libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each
other�s free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The
whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free
software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.
Even if MySQL were owned by Oracle because of its purchase of Sun, the
database would still be Free Software. Anyone could use the source code,
build their own version, and distribute it to others. But finally
Stallman has recognized that may not be good enough because somebody has
to pay for this stuff. Score one for pragmatism over purity. Hallelujah.
(Photo illustration by Zack Whittaker)
Ed Burnette is a professional developer and author of several articles
and books about computing including Hello, Android: Introducing Google's
Mobile Development Platform. For disclosure of Ed's industry
affiliations, click here or to view his full profile click here.
Email Ed Burnette"
Rjack
> Man oh man. This is hilarious.
>
> Guess why "the community should support the Oracle deal"?
>
> Because "opponents are trashing the GPL [PDF] and calling it a
> source of "infection" in their FUD submission to the EU Commission"
> that's why!
>
> Impeccable GNUtian "logic".
>
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392
> ("Reasons I Believe the Community Should Support the Oracle-Sun
> Deal - Updated 2Xs")
I certainly hope the EU Commission balks at Oracle's takeover of Sun
Microsystems and its MySQL codebase. It clearly establishes that
Europe's socialist markets are unable to compete in a proprietary,
capitalist World. It would also add great emphasis to the established
wisdom that U.S. companies should avoid failed socialist schemes based
upon "free" (GPL'd) software.
Sun adopted a GPL socialist strategy that ultimately doomed it to the
same fate as SCO and its failed "free" software schemes. Good riddance
to both. When American or European companies thoroughly realize how
utterly futile these socialist Intellectual Property models are
somebody will commercially enhance the BSD licensed PostgreSQL
"PostgreSQL: The world's most advanced open source database."
http://www.postgresql.org/
and MySQL software will land in the trash bin of failed business
models along with Sun and SCO.
"People often ask why PostgreSQL is not released under the GNU General
Public License. The simple answer is because we like the BSD license
and do not want to change it."
http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence
Sincerely,
Rjack
Alan Mackenzie
> Guess why "the community should support the Oracle deal"?
> Because "opponents are trashing the GPL [PDF] and calling it a source of
> "infection" in their FUD submission to the EU Commission" that's why!
> Impeccable GNUtian "logic".
> http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091021164738392
> ("Reasons I Believe the Community Should Support the Oracle-Sun Deal -
> Updated 2Xs")
> LOL.
Alex, my sincere advice to you would be to stop squandering your talents
and energies on posting such negative and snide postings here, and go and
something positive and useful instead.
Rjack
YES ALEXANDER!!! Trot on over to Groklaw and give someone a thorough
trashing behind their back. Replying directly to posters is so gauche
these days.
Sincerely,
Rjack :)