Re: Licensing - Mailing list pgsql-advocacy

Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when mitch.pirtle@gmail.com (Mitch Pirtle) would write:
> On 17 Mar 2005 05:22:44 GMT, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
>>
>> The "GPL + Traditional License" approach that MySQL AB is encouraging
>> is compatible with the notion that the "market" will consist of a
>> single software producer with exclusive ownership of the code base who
>> then sell it into a traditional style "proprietary" community of
>> customers/consumers.
>
> I think this is a distinct problem with the GPL. I'm being told that
> it is not clear in the GPL just what exactly a 'derivitive work' is,
> so a company that takes something released under the GPL, and adds
> something proprietary to it (like making something specific for
> vacation resorts or whatever) would then be required to be released
> under the GPL.

The GPL defers this issue to copyright law, as well as the issue of
precisely what "distribution" means.

For the FSF, whose interest is in maximizing the amount of "free"
software available, this is probably the optimal strategy, as the
uncertainty in determining these things probably pushes some software
over to them.

For "dueling license" vendors like MySQL AB, the uncertainty is
similarly useful in drawing out some licensing fees.

There is some "balance" involved, at least on the FSF side...  When
interpretations have gotten a little _too_ draconian, this has led to
software being deprecated by the "marketplace of users."  For
instance, people used to steer clear of GNU Bison because the
inclusion of GPLed template code meant that only projects that were
(essentially) willing to transfer copyright over to the FSF could
safely use it.

A court could better define where the edges lie, but this isn't really
in their interests (for either the FSF or for "dueling license
vendors") as there is no certainty that a court wouldn't establish a
new definition that was either "too closed" or "too open."

> Take Zend, for example. I'm told that they had to re-license PHP in
> order for them to keep the Zend Engine proprietary, otherwise it
> would be seen as a derivitive work. The GPL made it impossible for
> them to sell commercial products under a proprietary license as
> add-ons to a GPL codebase.

Any license that retains rights in a "sticky" fashion is incompatible
with this; it just so happens that the GPL is far and away the most
popular license with such characteristics.

If you use someone else's code, you have to follow their license (at
least if you care about following the law!);
that's true regardless of whether the software is "free" or
"proprietary" or "open source" or whatever.

> I'm now looking around at all of the largest FOSS projects out there,
> and almost none of them are under the GPL. I wonder if that is because
> the GPL is anti-business (perhaps even unintentional due to the viral
> nature of the GPL itself)?

The numerous vendors that are releasing software under the GPL aren't
finding it "anti-business," so I have to reject that notion.

An interesting _other_ case is with Sleepycat DB, where they use
"dueling licenses," neither being the GPL.  Some of the code has a
BSD-style license; the Sleepycat-owned stuff operates under a "you
have to provide sources for the whole application for free if you
distribute it" where they define that if politically distinct entities
are involved, it's redistribution.

Perhaps that ought to be considered "anti-business," though I haven't
ever heard Sleepycat Software being bashed in that way...
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="gmail.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://linuxfinances.info/info/slony.html
"The  reality of  the  software business  today  is that  if you  find
something that  can make you ridiculously rich,  then that's something
that Microsoft is going to take away from you." -- Max Metral