| Subject | Re: [ib-support] OT: comments re: attracting users to interbase |
|---|---|
| Author | David K. Trudgett |
| Post date | 2002-02-12T01:33:17Z |
On Monday 2002-02-11 at 12:38:15 -0500, Paul Schmidt wrote:
it.
My comment would be that, without having read the actual doc (which I
may well do when I get half a chance), such a restriction is in effect
unenforceable and no restriction at all. The reason is simple: one can
license the software under GPL in the first instance (for a
non-commercial use; for instance, to distribute your own version of
the software). Once I have licensed the software under GPL, there are
no restrictions as to what I can do with it (except that I can't
distribute it under a more restrictive license). Now I feel the sudden
urge to distribute the software to David T. Enterprises Pty Ltd. Under
the GPL I am free to do that. David T. Enterprises Pty Ltd is now free
to run the software for any purpose whatsoever, with no fees payable
to anyone.
A perusal of their website indicates that the MySQL people are very
confused about licensing. They think that "licensing" means charging
people, for instance. They also don't understand the GPL, including
the term "linking". This misunderstanding may be deliberate, in order
to induce people to pay commercial licensing fees. In fact under
the GPL (the only license they offer in actual fact), no one can be
required to pay license fees (the software would hardly then be
"free", would it?).
What it amounts to, whether they think so or not, is that MySQL are
bluffing about the requirement to pay commercial licensing fees.
David Trudgett
> On 11 Feb 2002, at 10:41, David K. Trudgett wrote:I don't want to extend this OT thread, so this will be my last post on
>
> > On Friday 2002-02-08 at 07:46:04 -0500, Paul Schmidt wrote:
> >
> > > shift the load around, for example triggers and SPs are missing. It
> > > also could win an obfustication contest for it's licence, it's
> > > sometimes GPL and other times not GPL, such as for commercial use...
> >
> > Sounds illegal. The GPL doesn't allow conditions like that.
> >
>
> Essentially, without paying a lawyer to figure it out, from what I
> understand they have two licences, a GPL one (not LGPL -- which
> would negate the other licence) which is fine if your developing stuff
> that will be GPL, but if your doing commercial projects, then they
> have a commercial licence, and it's not cheap.
it.
My comment would be that, without having read the actual doc (which I
may well do when I get half a chance), such a restriction is in effect
unenforceable and no restriction at all. The reason is simple: one can
license the software under GPL in the first instance (for a
non-commercial use; for instance, to distribute your own version of
the software). Once I have licensed the software under GPL, there are
no restrictions as to what I can do with it (except that I can't
distribute it under a more restrictive license). Now I feel the sudden
urge to distribute the software to David T. Enterprises Pty Ltd. Under
the GPL I am free to do that. David T. Enterprises Pty Ltd is now free
to run the software for any purpose whatsoever, with no fees payable
to anyone.
A perusal of their website indicates that the MySQL people are very
confused about licensing. They think that "licensing" means charging
people, for instance. They also don't understand the GPL, including
the term "linking". This misunderstanding may be deliberate, in order
to induce people to pay commercial licensing fees. In fact under
the GPL (the only license they offer in actual fact), no one can be
required to pay license fees (the software would hardly then be
"free", would it?).
What it amounts to, whether they think so or not, is that MySQL are
bluffing about the requirement to pay commercial licensing fees.
David Trudgett