Re: About GPL and proprietary software - Mailing list pgsql-general

> -----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?

> 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?

> 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.

By what data do you make this statement that MS and IBM have no fear of
the FSF?  Are you saying that there is no fear of the FSF products as
far as competition?  Are you saying that there is no fear of FSF
contamination of MS or IBM proprietary software?  I believe that there
is plenty of fear.  If there isn't, there ought to be.

> 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.

Straw man.  Nobody said that everyone was terrified or that FSF has
irresistable might.  However, *some* people/companies surely are
frightened.  The might of the FSF would be the might of the licenses
they hold.  Right now, that is an unknown quantity.  The very untested
nature of the licenses makes them more dangerous because there have been
no clarifying precedents at all, I would think (though I am not a
lawyer).

> 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.

Will their response have the weight of law?

> 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?

When did someone say that?  Or even hint at it?

> This is a morally bankrupt
> enterprise.

If someone had proposed it.

> If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.

Personally, I think a number of GPL products are really swell.  Those
include [for instance] Linux and GCC.  If someone were installing an
application or database server that required hundreds or thousands of
users, I would certainly recommend Linux over Windows 2003.

I don't think that supposing other license formats (like BSD or ACE) are
superior means that someone would not be able to use something with a
policy that is [considered] inferior or more restrictive.

Unpaid GPL programmers are exploited by the corporations that sell their
tools for profit.  But I suppose they can be expoited if they choose to
be.