Обсуждение: Licensing
Please redirect me if this is the wrong list to post to. I have a client who needs a database to install on laptops for use with a Java app (internal use only, this is a governmental agency). They originally thought MySQL might work, but the MySQL sales rep we spoke to says that you can't install MySQL server on laptops for use with an application without buying licenses (!) They claim you can only run it on a server using the open source license. I was surprised to hear this, but I wonder if PostgresQL has the same restrictions. The app will not be sold, or redistributed outside the organization. The app will be installed on the laptops along with the local server. Looking for a free and open source solution here that can handle many, many records. (HypersonicSQL was considered, but dropped due to large volume performance considerations). Anyone have any guidance on this? jpt <file://C:\Documents and Settings\jtillman\Application Data\Microsoft\Stationery\../../../My Documents/My Pictures/e_curve.bmp> James Tillman President Seva Technologies, LLC 850.201.9715 jamestillman@sevatechnologies.com http://www.sevatechnologies.com <http://www.sevatechnologies.com/>
Вложения
James, > I was surprised to hear this, but I wonder if PostgresQL has the same > restrictions. No. You can install PostgreSQL wherever you want. Just don't sue us: http://www.postgresql.org/about/licence -- __Aglio Database Solutions_______________ Josh Berkus Consultant josh@agliodbs.com www.agliodbs.com Ph: 415-752-2500 Fax: 415-752-2387 2166 Hayes Suite 200 San Francisco, CA
MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their open source offering licensed under something called theGPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in some ways quite complex. You or your client should consult an attorney to see whether your intended use meets its terms. Based on your response from the MySQL accountrep, it sounds like your app would not be in compliance. PostgreSQL, on the other hand, is licensed under something called the BSD (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). It is totally different, and is a much more business friendly license. It essentially allows you to do whatever you want. It is royalty free and does not have any important restrictionson redistribution. If PostgreSQL meets your technical needs, you should give it a try. Licensing will not be a problem. I'm a bit interested in what you are trying to do - large data volumes and laptops don't often go together. -----Original Message----- From: James Tillman [mailto:JamesTillman@sevatechnologies.com] Sent: Friday, March 04, 2005 3:04 PM To: pgsql-advocacy@postgresql.org Subject: [pgsql-advocacy] Licensing Please redirect me if this is the wrong list to post to. I have a client who needs a database to install on laptops for use with a Java app (internal use only, this is a governmental agency). They originally thought MySQL might work, but the MySQL sales rep we spoke to says that you can't install MySQL server on laptops for use with an application without buying licenses (!) They claim you can only run it on a server using the open source license. I was surprised to hear this, but I wonder if PostgresQL has the same restrictions. The app will not be sold, or redistributed outside the organization. The app will be installed on the laptops along with the local server. Looking for a free and open source solution here that can handle many, many records. (HypersonicSQL was considered, but dropped due to large volume performance considerations). Anyone have any guidance on this? jpt <file://C:\Documents and Settings\jtillman\Application Data\Microsoft\Stationery\../../../My Documents/My Pictures/e_curve.bmp> James Tillman President Seva Technologies, LLC 850.201.9715 jamestillman@sevatechnologies.com http://www.sevatechnologies.com <http://www.sevatechnologies.com/>
Hello James, I'm not too sure on what footing your salesman is standing on but postgresql for intents and purchases doesn't have licensingissues. On March 4, 2005 04:03 pm, James Tillman wrote: > Please redirect me if this is the wrong list to post to. I have a client > who needs a database to install on laptops for use with a Java app > (internal use only, this is a governmental agency). They originally > thought MySQL might work, but the MySQL sales rep we spoke to says that you > can't install MySQL server on laptops for use with an application without > buying licenses (!) They claim you can only run it on a server using the > open source license. > > I was surprised to hear this, but I wonder if PostgresQL has the same > restrictions. > > The app will not be sold, or redistributed outside the organization. The > app will be installed on the laptops along with the local server. Looking > for a free and open source solution here that can handle many, many > records. (HypersonicSQL was considered, but dropped due to large volume > performance considerations). > > Anyone have any guidance on this? > > jpt > > <file://C:\Documents and Settings\jtillman\Application > Data\Microsoft\Stationery\../../../My Documents/My Pictures/e_curve.bmp> > James Tillman > President > Seva Technologies, LLC > 850.201.9715 > jamestillman@sevatechnologies.com > http://www.sevatechnologies.com <http://www.sevatechnologies.com/>
Quoth LObermey@pervasive.com ("Lance Obermeyer"):
> MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their
> open source offering licensed under something called the GPL
> (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in
> some ways quite complex. You or your client should consult an
> attorney to see whether your intended use meets its terms. Based on
> your response from the MySQL account rep, it sounds like your app
> would not be in compliance.
>
> PostgreSQL, on the other hand, is licensed under something called
> the BSD (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/bsd-license.php). It is
> totally different, and is a much more business friendly license. It
> essentially allows you to do whatever you want. It is royalty free
> and does not have any important restrictions on redistribution.
That's an excellent commentary on the issues.
I'll poke at the "business friendly" bit a little bit because it seems
to me that things are a _little_ more complex than that.
The approach MySQL AB has taken with its "dual licensing" (I love to
call it "dueling licensing" ;-)) is, in fact, quite "business
friendly." It's just that the only business that it happens to be
particularly friendly to is MySQL AB. Ditto for TrollTech and Qt, and
Sun and OpenOffice.org.
The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging
is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a
single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who
then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of
customers/consumers.
Unfortunately, in order to be able to operate under the dual licenses,
this presents the necessity that one party has exclusive ownership of
the application code. That requirement of ownership prevents the kind
of "community participation" we see with PostgreSQL, where there are
numerous contributors working for numerous organizations.
People are often willing to sign over copyright to an organization
that operates in some form of "public interest," wherein you can see
MANY contributions that have gone to GPL-licensed software where
copyright is held by the non-profit "Free Software Foundation."
There has been, in contrast, a distinct paucity of willingness to
donate code to "dueling licenses" organizations. Unlike the FSF
projects, you _don't_ see a lot of code coming in from outside.
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
"We are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need
mending." --/Moby-Dick/, Ch 17
Lance Obermeyer wrote: >MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their open source offering licensed under something called theGPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in some ways quite complex. You or your client should consult an attorney to see whether your intended use meets its terms. Based on your response from the MySQL accountrep, it sounds like your app would not be in compliance. > > If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two choices: 1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use MySQL for free 2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she must pay for each MySQL installation BTW, this was one of our reasons we enhanced our database backend code to use PostgreSQL (besides MySQL) and now its our number one choice for our clients. Miroslav Šulc
Вложения
"... the only business that it happens to be particularly friendly to is MySQL AB"
That's a great line!! I gotta start using that.
-- Lance
-----Original Message-----
From: Christopher Browne [mailto:cbbrowne@acm.org]
The approach MySQL AB has taken with its "dual licensing" (I love to
call it "dueling licensing" ;-)) is, in fact, quite "business
friendly." It's just that the only business that it happens to be
particularly friendly to is MySQL AB.
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 09:48 +0100, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > Lance Obermeyer wrote: > > >MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their open source offering licensed under something calledthe GPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in some ways quite complex. You or your clientshould consult an attorney to see whether your intended use meets its terms. Based on your response from the MySQLaccount rep, it sounds like your app would not be in compliance. > > > > > If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two > choices: > > 1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use > MySQL for free > 2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she > must pay for each MySQL installation > I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP is licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which are typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL? -Robby -- /*************************************** * Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON | www.planetargon.com * Portland, OR | robby@planetargon.com * 503.351.4730 | blog.planetargon.com * PHP/PostgreSQL Hosting & Development * --- Now hosting Ruby on Rails Apps --- ****************************************/
On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0800 Robby Russell <robby@planetargon.com> wr= ote: > On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 09:48 +0100, Miroslav =C5=A0ulc wrote: > > Lance Obermeyer wrote: > >=20 > > >MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their open= source offering licensed under something called the GPL (http://www.openso= urce.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in some ways quite complex. Y= ou or your client should consult an attorney to see whether your intended = use meets its terms. Based on your response from the MySQL account rep, it= sounds like your app would not be in compliance. > > >=20=20 > > > > > If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two > > choices: > >=20 > > 1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use > > MySQL for free > > 2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she > > must pay for each MySQL installation > >=20 > I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP is > licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your > statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which are > typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL? if memory serves, the PHP folks pitched a fit over MySQL licensing changes, and the fine folks at MySQL AB did some tweaks to accomodate them. as far as point 2 goes, MySQL AB only claims you need to buy a commercial license if you plan to distribute your code under a non GPL license, for some rather ill defined notion of "distribute". richard --=20 Richard Welty rwelty@averillpark.net Averill Park Networking 518-573-7592 Java, PHP, PostgreSQL, Unix, Linux, IP Network Engineering, Security "F=3DMA : it's not just a good idea, it's the law"
On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:48:24 +0100, Miroslav ?ulc <miroslav.sulc@startnet.cz> wrote: > If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two > choices: > > 1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use > MySQL for free > 2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she > must pay for each MySQL installation No really. The software is GPL and you can use it as you would any GPL software. However MySQL threatans to take people to court if they use the software commercially. They may or may not win, but this gets companies to pay MySQL license fees rather than pay to go to court. In theory if your application isn't tied tightly to MySQL you should be able to win a lawsuit. But the first couple of companies that did this will probably end up paying more in court costs than license fees. I don't think their licensing stance is ethical. Because they own the full copyright and effectively own the developers, they could play other games down the road as well.
On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Welty wrote: > On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0800 Robby Russell <robby@planetargon.com> wrote: > > > I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP is > > licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your > > statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which are > > typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL? > > if memory serves, the PHP folks pitched a fit over MySQL licensing > changes, and the fine folks at MySQL AB did some tweaks to > accomodate them. > > as far as point 2 goes, MySQL AB only claims you need to buy a > commercial license if you plan to distribute your code under a non > GPL license, for some rather ill defined notion of "distribute". > > richard Perhaps the bigger problem with their licensing model is that hardly anyone completely understands what they can legally do and not do with MySQL... -Robby -- /*************************************** * Robby Russell | Owner.Developer.Geek * PLANET ARGON | www.planetargon.com * Portland, OR | robby@planetargon.com * 503.351.4730 | blog.planetargon.com * PHP/PostgreSQL Hosting & Development * --- Now hosting Ruby on Rails Apps --- ****************************************/
Robby Russell wrote: >On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 09:48 +0100, Miroslav Šulc wrote: > > >>Lance Obermeyer wrote: >> >> >> >>>MySQL is a commercial company that wants to sell licenses. Their open source offering licensed under something calledthe GPL (http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php), which is in some ways quite complex. You or your clientshould consult an attorney to see whether your intended use meets its terms. Based on your response from the MySQLaccount rep, it sounds like your app would not be in compliance. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two >>choices: >> >>1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use >>MySQL for free >>2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she >>must pay for each MySQL installation >> >> >> > >I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP is >licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your >statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which are >typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL? > > That was the simplification :-) There is an exception for PHP (and also FOSS exception). If I remember it well, the app must be distributed under GPL license or PHP license version 3.0 to be able to use the MySQL for free. As you can see, PHP 5 doesn't contain MySQL extension compiled in by default, but PHP 4 did. This change may be caused by the change of MySQL license. You can see it here http://cz2.php.net/manual/en/ref.mysql.php and here http://cz2.php.net/manual/en/faq.databases.php#faq.databases.mysql.php5. Detail MySQL licensing information can be found here http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html and here http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/commercial-license.html. I'm no longer interested in the MySQL licenses because I've already made my decision. I think that PostgreSQL license is much better (and much more cleaner) and most people will sleep much better when using PostgreSQL instead of MySQL ;-) >-Robby > > Miroslav Šulc
Вложения
Bruno Wolff III wrote: >On Sat, Mar 05, 2005 at 09:48:24 +0100, > Miroslav ?ulc <miroslav.sulc@startnet.cz> wrote: > > >>If I understood MySQL licensing correctly, simply said, end user has two >>choices: >> >>1) when using application that is licensed under GPL, he/she can use >>MySQL for free >>2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she >>must pay for each MySQL installation >> >> > >No really. The software is GPL and you can use it as you would any GPL >software. However MySQL threatans to take people to court if they use >the software commercially. They may or may not win, but this gets companies >to pay MySQL license fees rather than pay to go to court. > > As I wrote in another e-mail to this thread, I'm no more interested in MySQL and its licensing so I might eplain it not perfectly. >In theory if your application isn't tied tightly to MySQL you should be >able to win a lawsuit. But the first couple of companies that did this >will probably end up paying more in court costs than license fees. > > I think the "new" MySQL licensing is not very clear and it might be an opportunity to increase the PostgreSQL user base :-) >I don't think their licensing stance is ethical. Because they own the >full copyright and effectively own the developers, they could play other >games down the road as well. > > Miroslav Šulc
Вложения
>>2) when using application under any other license (simplified), he/she
>>must pay for each MySQL installation
>>
>>
>>
>
>I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP is
>licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your
>statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which are
>typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL?
>
>
From the MySQL webpage:
Specifically:
*
MySQL is free use for those who are 100% GPL. If your application
is licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL
AB, you are free to ship any GPL software of MySQL AB with your
application ('application' means any type of software application,
system, tool or utility). You do not need a separate signed
agreement with MySQL AB, because the GPL license is sufficient. We
do, however, recommend you contact us as there usually are good
opportunities for partnership and co-marketing.
*
Under the Open Source License, you must release the complete
source code for the application that is built on MySQL. You do not
need to release the source code for components that are generally
installed on the operating system on which your application runs,
such as system header files or libraries.
*
Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long
as you never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are
free to use it for powering your application, irrespective of
whether your application is under GPL license or not.
*
You are allowed to modify MySQL Software source code any way you
like as long as the distributed derivative work is licensed under
the GPL as well.
*
You are allowed to copy MySQL binaries and source code, but when
you do so, the copies will fall under the GPL license.
*
*Optional GPL License Exception for PHP.* As a special exception,
MySQL AB gives permission to distribute derivative works that are
formed with GPL-licensed MySQL software and with software licensed
under version 3.0 of the PHP license. You must obey the GNU
General Public License in all respects for all of the code used
other than code licensed under version 3.0 of the PHP license.
*
*FOSS Exception.* We have created a license exception
<http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html>
which enables Free and Open Source software ("FOSS") to be able to
include the GPL-licensed MySQL client libraries despite the fact
that not all open source licenses are compatible with the GPL.Read
more about the exception.
<http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html>
>-Robby
>
>
>
--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Вложения
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, robby@planetargon.com (Robby Russell) wrote: > On Sat, 2005-03-05 at 11:17 -0500, Richard Welty wrote: >> On Sat, 05 Mar 2005 07:57:06 -0800 Robby Russell <robby@planetargon.com> wrote: >> >> > I don't think that this is completely accurate. For instance, PHP >> > is licensed under the PHP license, not GPL. So, according to your >> > statement, you cannot use any of the PHP Pear libraries (which >> > are typically PHP license) without a license from MySQL? >> >> if memory serves, the PHP folks pitched a fit over MySQL licensing >> changes, and the fine folks at MySQL AB did some tweaks to >> accomodate them. >> >> as far as point 2 goes, MySQL AB only claims you need to buy a >> commercial license if you plan to distribute your code under a non >> GPL license, for some rather ill defined notion of "distribute". > > Perhaps the bigger problem with their licensing model is that hardly > anyone completely understands what they can legally do and not do > with MySQL... That, of course, is a pretty desirable consequence. If people are induced to be uncertain about the meaning of the licensing terms, then that points them naturally to "If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective commercial licenses. That is the safest solution." That uncertainty is worth about $300USD per server license per year. -- "cbbrowne","@","gmail.com" http://cbbrowne.com/info/rdbms.html "Robot: Your plastic pal who's fun to be with." -- Marketing Division, Sirius Cybernetics Corp.
> > > >No really. The software is GPL and you can use it as you would any GPL >software. However MySQL threatans to take people to court if they use >the software commercially. They may or may not win, but this gets companies >to pay MySQL license fees rather than pay to go to court. > >In theory if your application isn't tied tightly to MySQL you should be >able to win a lawsuit. But the first couple of companies that did this >will probably end up paying more in court costs than license fees. > > This is an extremely important point IMHO (IANAL). My company releases most of the projects we do under the GPL (unlike MySQL we don't require that changes get assigned to us). One of the thing that makes the GPL very powerful is that the balance of risk in litigating favors just buying the licenses. Like many, I think that the GPL would largely stand up in court but some of the ambiguity inherent in the question of what exactly is a derivative work will slowly get hammered out by the courts. For example, I am not convinced that linking is sufficient to consider a work derivative. But until people have an incentive (on the balance) to ask the court to clarify this question, I suspect that the term will largely mean whatever the licensor says it means. This means that obtaining GPL'd software from a single commercial entity is fairly risky because one is held captive to the possibility of litigation-based extortion. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting
I just wanted to say thanks to all who responded to my question regarding licensing. Although I'm fairly certain that it would be legal for my client to use MySQL in the manner we intended, despite what the sales rep said, the client doesn't like ambiguity, so we'll likely be going with PostgresQL, unless Oracle cuts them a nice deal! (Client is heavily into Oracle). jpt
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:01:47 -0500, James Tillman
<JamesTillman@sevatechnologies.com> wrote:
> I just wanted to say thanks to all who responded to my question regarding
> licensing.
>
> Although I'm fairly certain that it would be legal for my client to use
> MySQL in the manner we intended, despite what the sales rep said, the client
> doesn't like ambiguity, so we'll likely be going with PostgresQL, unless
> Oracle cuts them a nice deal! (Client is heavily into Oracle).
If so, you would be much happier with PostgreSQL than MySQL.
IMHO PostgreSQL is much closer to Oracle than MySQL when it
comes to SQL. Things like transactions, views, procedural languages,
referential integrity, triggers, etc. are either not done yet, in beta
stage or rarely used. :)
Regards,
Dawid
That's an excellent commentary on the issues.
I'll poke at the "business friendly" bit a little bit because it seems
to me that things are a _little_ more complex than that.
The approach MySQL AB has taken with its "dual licensing" (I love to
call it "dueling licensing" ;-)) is, in fact, quite "business
friendly." It's just that the only business that it happens to be
particularly friendly to is MySQL AB. Ditto for TrollTech and Qt, and
Sun and OpenOffice.org.
The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging
is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a
single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who
then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of
customers/consumers.
Unfortunately, in order to be able to operate under the dual licenses,
this presents the necessity that one party has exclusive ownership of
the application code. That requirement of ownership prevents the kind
of "community participation" we see with PostgreSQL, where there are
numerous contributors working for numerous organizations.
People are often willing to sign over copyright to an organization
that operates in some form of "public interest," wherein you can see
MANY contributions that have gone to GPL-licensed software where
copyright is held by the non-profit "Free Software Foundation."
There has been, in contrast, a distinct paucity of willingness to
donate code to "dueling licenses" organizations. Unlike the FSF
projects, you _don't_ see a lot of code coming in from outside.
--
output = reverse("moc.liamg" "@" "enworbbc")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/internet.html
"We are all somehow dreadfully cracked about the head, and sadly need
mending." --/Moby-Dick/, Ch 17
Christopher Browne wrote: >That's an excellent commentary on the issues. > >I'll poke at the "business friendly" bit a little bit because it seems >to me that things are a _little_ more complex than that. > >The approach MySQL AB has taken with its "dual licensing" (I love to >call it "dueling licensing" ;-)) is, in fact, quite "business >friendly." It's just that the only business that it happens to be >particularly friendly to is MySQL AB. Ditto for TrollTech and Qt, and >Sun and OpenOffice.org. > >The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging >is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a >single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who >then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of >customers/consumers. > >Unfortunately, in order to be able to operate under the dual licenses, >this presents the necessity that one party has exclusive ownership of >the application code. That requirement of ownership prevents the kind >of "community participation" we see with PostgreSQL, where there are >numerous contributors working for numerous organizations. > > Ownership is not strictly speaking required. Digium, for example, does not require that contributions to Asterisk are assigned to them, just that the author gives them a license under BSD-like terms (which they then relicense under the GPL and their own proprietary license). The difference is that if I hand over my copyright to you, I am no longer allowed to distribute my work as part of another product, but if I license it to the company under a permissive license, I still retain all rights to it. >People are often willing to sign over copyright to an organization >that operates in some form of "public interest," wherein you can see >MANY contributions that have gone to GPL-licensed software where >copyright is held by the non-profit "Free Software Foundation." > > Completely agree. It is a worse form of subsidizing the competition is than normally found in the BSD community (think FreeBSD v. SunOS) ;-). At least there the idea was that academic projects should support a wide range of economic approaches. With copyright assignment, one is essentially *giving away their rights to rerelease the code under other terms* while giving those rights to a competitor. Note, I pick on FreeBSD for subsidizing their competition, and I realize that FreeBSD was originally comfortable with this idea. So the observation is more an economic one than a practical one. OTOH, projects like Apache or PostgreSQL might subsidize their competition, but the competition will rarely have any chance of superceding the main project in terms of user base. >There has been, in contrast, a distinct paucity of willingness to >donate code to "dueling licenses" organizations. Unlike the FSF >projects, you _don't_ see a lot of code coming in from outside. > > Personally, I see dual-license as a worst-of-both-worlds approach. You usually turn away good people who might otherwise make a contribution, and you end up competing with your own free products. Not a good solution. It can be done well (I think that Digium does a good job with Asterisk), but that is a special circumstance partly mandated by the fact that some standard telecom codects (G.729 iirc) are pretty heavily encumbered under patents, so there is a real market which is incompatible with the GPL. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Вложения
On 17 Mar 2005 05:22:44 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote: > > The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging > is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a > single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who > then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of > customers/consumers. I think this is a distinct problem with the GPL. I'm being told that it is not clear in the GPL just what exactly a 'derivitive work' is, so a company that takes something released under the GPL, and adds something proprietary to it (like making something specific for vacation resorts or whatever) would then be required to be released under the GPL. Take Zend, for example. I'm told that they had to re-license PHP in order for them to keep the Zend Engine proprietary, otherwise it would be seen as a derivitive work. The GPL made it impossible for them to sell commercial products under a proprietary license as add-ons to a GPL codebase. I'm now looking around at all of the largest FOSS projects out there, and almost none of them are under the GPL. I wonder if that is because the GPL is anti-business (perhaps even unintentional due to the viral nature of the GPL itself)? -- Mitch
Mitch Pirtle wrote: >On 17 Mar 2005 05:22:44 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote: > > >>The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging >>is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a >>single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who >>then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of >>customers/consumers. >> >> > >I think this is a distinct problem with the GPL. I'm being told that >it is not clear in the GPL just what exactly a 'derivitive work' is, >so a company that takes something released under the GPL, and adds >something proprietary to it (like making something specific for >vacation resorts or whatever) would then be required to be released >under the GPL. > > > I think it is actually worse than that. Keep in mind that my business uses the GPL extensively. IANAL, of course.... The definition of derivative works varies from juristiction to juristiction. So you have a fairly nebulous term-- even whre eit may be comparitively well defined, you have the issue that a copyright holder in another juristiction might be able to force a different interpretation. Secondly, if two commercial companies had a dispute and both had a strong economic interest in clearing something up, then we might see some real clarity at least in some juristictions, but this is not the case. If my business was asked by the FSF to reform our business practices because they had a half-way plausible interpretation of what I was not allowed to do, then I would have no choice other than to go along. The FSF risks *very little* to go to court. After all, under a *worst case scenario* the GPL becomes basically like the LGPL, and they pay their court costs. For the potentially infringing, however, the risks are a lot higher. So the GPL enforces a huge no-mans-land which exists between likely legal interpretations and actual implimentations, simply because nobody in their right mind would want to fight over it. >Take Zend, for example. I'm told that they had to re-license PHP in >order for them to keep the Zend Engine proprietary, otherwise it would >be seen as a derivitive work. The GPL made it impossible for them to >sell commercial products under a proprietary license as add-ons to a >GPL codebase. > > The classic example were the Obj-C libs that Apple released under a proprietary license and provided instructions for linking with the GCC. The FSF convinced Apple to release the code under the GPL arguing that it was a derivative work. Personally I am not sure that linking is sufficient, and clearly, it should be possible to write wrapper libraries under the LGPL and use proprietary code written against those. For example, nobody argues that NDIS-wrapper violates the GPL even though it essentially allows proprietary network drivers to link with a GPL'd kernel. >I'm now looking around at all of the largest FOSS projects out there, >and almost none of them are under the GPL. I wonder if that is because >the GPL is anti-business (perhaps even unintentional due to the viral >nature of the GPL itself)? > > > My business uses the GPL extensively because we don't want to be subsidizing our competition without reciprocation. Simple as that. The license is not pro or anti-business. It is the implimentation. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when mitch.pirtle@gmail.com (Mitch Pirtle) would write: > On 17 Mar 2005 05:22:44 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote: >> >> The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging >> is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a >> single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who >> then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of >> customers/consumers. > > I think this is a distinct problem with the GPL. I'm being told that > it is not clear in the GPL just what exactly a 'derivitive work' is, > so a company that takes something released under the GPL, and adds > something proprietary to it (like making something specific for > vacation resorts or whatever) would then be required to be released > under the GPL. The GPL defers this issue to copyright law, as well as the issue of precisely what "distribution" means. For the FSF, whose interest is in maximizing the amount of "free" software available, this is probably the optimal strategy, as the uncertainty in determining these things probably pushes some software over to them. For "dueling license" vendors like MySQL AB, the uncertainty is similarly useful in drawing out some licensing fees. There is some "balance" involved, at least on the FSF side... When interpretations have gotten a little _too_ draconian, this has led to software being deprecated by the "marketplace of users." For instance, people used to steer clear of GNU Bison because the inclusion of GPLed template code meant that only projects that were (essentially) willing to transfer copyright over to the FSF could safely use it. A court could better define where the edges lie, but this isn't really in their interests (for either the FSF or for "dueling license vendors") as there is no certainty that a court wouldn't establish a new definition that was either "too closed" or "too open." > Take Zend, for example. I'm told that they had to re-license PHP in > order for them to keep the Zend Engine proprietary, otherwise it > would be seen as a derivitive work. The GPL made it impossible for > them to sell commercial products under a proprietary license as > add-ons to a GPL codebase. Any license that retains rights in a "sticky" fashion is incompatible with this; it just so happens that the GPL is far and away the most popular license with such characteristics. If you use someone else's code, you have to follow their license (at least if you care about following the law!); that's true regardless of whether the software is "free" or "proprietary" or "open source" or whatever. > I'm now looking around at all of the largest FOSS projects out there, > and almost none of them are under the GPL. I wonder if that is because > the GPL is anti-business (perhaps even unintentional due to the viral > nature of the GPL itself)? The numerous vendors that are releasing software under the GPL aren't finding it "anti-business," so I have to reject that notion. An interesting _other_ case is with Sleepycat DB, where they use "dueling licenses," neither being the GPL. Some of the code has a BSD-style license; the Sleepycat-owned stuff operates under a "you have to provide sources for the whole application for free if you distribute it" where they define that if politically distinct entities are involved, it's redistribution. Perhaps that ought to be considered "anti-business," though I haven't ever heard Sleepycat Software being bashed in that way... -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];; http://linuxfinances.info/info/slony.html "The reality of the software business today is that if you find something that can make you ridiculously rich, then that's something that Microsoft is going to take away from you." -- Max Metral
On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 09:12:12 -0500, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote: > > If you use someone else's code, you have to follow their license (at > least if you care about following the law!); > that's true regardless of whether the software is "free" or > "proprietary" or "open source" or whatever. My angle is just the opposite, what if I want to release code under an open source license, but allow commercial entities the freedom to provide add-ons under whatever license they choose? I cannot use the GPL in that case, as it is too restrictive - and as you point out, too murky for anyone to consider taking the chance as it hasn't been tested in court AFAIK. This is the problem of anyone that creates a program and gives it away. You have to know in advance who you want to accommodate, as the GPL appears to completely restrict them, whereas other licenses may make it possible to provide additional features as products under non-free licenses. Sorry to be misleading, this is actually the quandary that I am trying to solve at the moment. -- Mitch
Mitch, > My angle is just the opposite, what if I want to release code under an > open source license, but allow commercial entities the freedom to > provide add-ons under whatever license they choose? I actually talk to companies about licensing proprietary code as OSS frequently (though I refer them to Larry Rosen, John Koenig and Gwyn Murray as well, since IANAL). Which license you use is really dependant on what you expect to get out of open-sourcing your code. (1) You have an application or software plug-in that you want to make the de-facto standard in some niche, so you need it to have the widest possible distribution. Or, you're open-sourcing it mainly to make your competitor's offerings unprofitable. You do not expect to make any money off the code itself but off of complimentary offerings. (2) You have a (potentially) profitable proprietary application which is important to your business. You want to take advantage of OSS to surpass traditional distribution channels, but still want to make money off of it. You are a small challenger in a competitive market with other, bigger players. (3) You have an unprofitable proprietary application and you want to increase your visibility and PR and goodwill in the OSS/hacker community by open-sourcing it. For case (1), you want to use a BSD-like license; BSD, Apache or Artistic. The commercializability of your code will encourage the whole industry, including your competitors, to adopt it. For case (2), you want the GPL or a similar "viral" license. If you released the code under a BSD-like license, your big competitors might snap it up and use it to put you out of business. For (3), you could use *any* license; it really doesn't matter because you never expect to use the code again. Ideally, you want to use something like the MPL or Apache which keeps your name with the code, but other considerations, like complimenting licenses with other software, who's going to host the project, or how you feel about the FSF, are more important. Within that, you want to use the most liberal license possible in order to attract outside developers; a dead abandonware project is nobody's PR bonus. Feel free to call me; phone avail at www.agliodbs.com. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Josh Berkus wrote: >Mitch, > > > >>My angle is just the opposite, what if I want to release code under an >>open source license, but allow commercial entities the freedom to >>provide add-ons under whatever license they choose? >> >> > >I actually talk to companies about licensing proprietary code as OSS >frequently (though I refer them to Larry Rosen, John Koenig and Gwyn Murray >as well, since IANAL). Which license you use is really dependant on what you >expect to get out of open-sourcing your code. > >(1) You have an application or software plug-in that you want to make the >de-facto standard in some niche, so you need it to have the widest possible >distribution. Or, you're open-sourcing it mainly to make your competitor's >offerings unprofitable. You do not expect to make any money off the code >itself but off of complimentary offerings. > > > Break the above case into two ones: 1) You have an application you want to be a de-facto standard, or the basis for a de-facto standard. BSD license is best. 2) You want to undercut competitor's offerings. The choice of license requires more information. FreeBSD did not make Solaris unprofitable, and instead subsidized its development, for example. On the other hand the GPL has allowed Linux to more effectively undercut Solaris than FreeBSD ever did. On the other hand, the BSD license works well in the case where your competitors cannot easily take your code and use it to subsidize their operations. FWIW, I think that as Linux kills proprietary UNIX, that BSD's market share will dramatically increase. But this last point is somewhat weaker than it may appear. BSD licensed projects are competitive based on the size of their user/developer community. At a certain point, commercial development cannot keep up with open sourced projects under any license and there is a strong incentive to donate back to strong projects. Best Wishes, Chris Travers Metatron Technology Consulting