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.
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.
Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many
large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no
legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no
one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that
everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might.
License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions
about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have
questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of
us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF
interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF
interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find
or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself.
Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright
holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise.
If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.
