[linux-elitists] Re: [SPAM] Re: GPL Violations [was Re: Mobile Phone Choices]
Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz
Fri Jul 28 15:08:22 PDT 2006
On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:38:22AM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> On Friday 28 July 2006 20:27, Luis Rodrigo Gallardo Cruz wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 09:08:17PM +0300, Shlomi Fish wrote:
> > I really fail to see how the copyright holder's going propietary
> > woluld hold me any more ransom if previous releases were GPL than if
> > they were BSD. I'd still have the last free release to work from and
> > none of the later ones to incorporate.
> Well, the reason for that is that MySQL wanted to sell a non-GPLed commercial
> licence for its software which was generally GPLed. Now since it used BDB,
> which was also pseduo-GPLed then MySQL had to pay SleepyCat as part of the
> licence fees it recieved. (or Inno). However, since Oracle has bought
> SleepyCat and Inno, it can now refuse to exempt MySQL from the licensing of
> both the new and the old versions of BDB or InnoBase.
> Now, if BDB or InnoBase were BSD or LGPLed, then MySQL could have continued to
> develop them on their own and use them. But since they are GPLed - it's in a
> Note that naturally, if you develop software under a GPL-compatible license
> that links against GPLed code, then there isn't any problem. However, that
> was not the case for MySQL.
Ok, get it. Don't think many here will be preocupied by this issue,
but I can grant that it exists.
> > > I realise the MS EULA is much more complex than the GPL (and in most
> > > regards, more restrictive.)
> > Uh? Most?
> > Could you, like, enlighten me and tell me *one* thing *any* non-free
> > non-source EULA allows me to do that a free one does not?
> Well, for once I can develop commercial, proprietary software using Java or
> most everything from Microsoft, that I cannot using the GPL.
If you mean 'I can derive propietary sw from MS or java' you're wrong, you
If you mean 'I can use MS or java to develop propietary sw', well, you
can also use whatever-free-environment-you-like to
develop propietary sw. So you're wrong, too.
> > > ... SleepyCat
> > > licence, which is GPL-like, but simpler (allows proprietary sourceware to
> > > link against it.).
> > I don't follow this. Why is 'has fewer restrictions' an argument
> > towards 'is simpler'.
> Well, the SleepyCat licence is 3 or 4 paragraphs that I had no problem to
> understand, just by reading them. But I couldn't understand the GPL. The GPL
> goes to great lengthes to explain what is acceptable and what isn't. The
> SleepyCat licence is more simpler.
Well, but it's simpler because it's shorter, not because it has fewer
restrictions. And, it might just be that by not explaining at length
it could create confusion as to what it means (how does one *know*
when true understanding has been reached?) which would make it more
problematic, which does not necesarily fit into my definition of 'simpler'.
(But then, I was kind of baiting, by taking a literal
reading of what you wrote)
GPG-Fingerprint: 7C81 E60C 442E 8FBC D975 2F49 0199 8318 ADC9 BC28
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://allium.zgp.org/pipermail/linux-elitists/attachments/20060728/5b5ee1a5/attachment.pgp
More information about the linux-elitists