Re: About GPL and proprietary software

Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenDCorbit@connx.com ("Dann Corbit")wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Doug Quale [mailto:quale1@charter.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:13 PM
>> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software
>>
>>
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>
>> > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL
>> reach as far as
>> > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable
>> definition.  In
>> > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal
>> > action (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as
>> > possible. This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds
>> > like a new term).
>>
>> First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is
>> an error.

> You mean that they have different desires for the scope of the GPL
> license scheme?  Which one has taken a more relaxed posture?

They have _considerably_ different ethical frameworks surrounding
their purposes and actions.  And yes, they _obviously_ have different
desires surrounding the use of the GPL.

The FSF created it to maintain what they regard as "freedom" of
software.  (The fact that your definitions may differ does not change
their intent, nor does it change what is *right* about their intent.)

In contrast, MySQL AB quite clearly uses the GPL to allow those that
are "impoverished/cheap" to not need to pay license fees for their
_commercial_ products, so long as they play by certain rules.

>> As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual
>> licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL.  The
>> FSF is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code.

> Which brings up an interesting question.  How has the FSF become the
> legal copyright holder to ANYTHING?  After all, the FSF is not the
> original author of any of it.  Who was it that decided the FSF was
> to suddenly become the owner of this stuff?  What legal weight did
> that decision have?

The FSF holds copyright because those projects run under the auspices
of the FSF require that contributors assign copyright to the FSF.
Notable such projects include GCC, GNU Emacs, GLIBC, the various "GNU
tools" sets (binary tools, text tools, and such).

The FSF has been really quite careful about this, as this is the way
that they establish legal right to be the legal 'protectors' of those
bodies of code.  Development of GCC largely "stalled" for a while
because they were pretty zealous to make sure the paperwork was in
place whilst would-be contributors thought this was all pointless.
(In much the same way that people visit PostgreSQL once in a while and
think that the license should "of course" be changed to the GPL.)
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','acm.org').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html
JOHN CAGE (strapped to table): Do you really expect me to conduct this
 antiquated tonal system?
LEONARD BERNSTEIN: No, Mr. Cage, I expect  you to die!
[With apologies to music and James Bond fans the world over...]