

Stallman Urges EC to Stop Oracle Acquisition of Sun - bootload
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Database/Stallman-Urges-EC-to-Stop-Oracle-Acquisition-of-Sun-581470/

======
startingup
In the name of freedom, what the MySQL flavor of GPL has achieved is to give
special powers of dual-licensing to the "original author" - all animals are
equal, some animals are more equal than the others. The MySQL business model
is entirely based on this special power they reserved for themselves.
Stallman's defense of it (which is not new) is precisely why I have always
been wary of using GPL code and am a passionate believer in BSD/MIT license
approach to software freedom.

The time has come for a reevaluation of what constitutes real open source. I
believe GPL should be excluded from it, and the MySQL business model is the
classic example.

To those who answer "Linux", keep in mind that Torvalds unilaterally declared
that applications that run on top of Linux (calling Linux via the standard
libraries) are exempt from GPL. This is _in effect_ LGPL, not GPL.

MySQL specifically takes the opposite tack: any application that uses the
database using standard libraries comes under GPL, for distribution purposes.

LGPL and GPL are _very_ different animals.

~~~
blasdel
_keep in mind that Torvalds unilaterally declared that applications that run
on top of Linux are exempt from GPL._

That text is just there to allay FUD, it's not a necessary part of the license
in any way.

 _This is in effect LGPL, not GPL._

No it is not, not in any way, shape, or form. If you distribute something that
dynamically links with the kernel, the GPL applies to you in full force.

To the kernel, applications running in userspace are _data_. They may link
with libc to make syscalls, but that just means they throw interrupts that the
kernel catches. Your userspace programs aren't derivative works of the kernel
any more than your documents are derivative works of the last application you
used to edit them.

------
protomyth
I see stuff like this and I wonder about two things: 1) there is another open
source (BSD) database - postgresql 2) why should it matter, since the whole
purpose of the GPL is to keep Oracle from "destroying" MySQL. Didn't the GPL
protect the users in this case?

~~~
keyist
Here's the letter to the EC written by Stallman et al the OP is referring to:
<http://keionline.org/ec-mysql> . Shocking of eWeek to leave out the link.

The key paragraphs imo are:

 _"As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new
forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel
licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support
continued development of the MySQL platform._

 _The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the
development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and
dispersing MySQL's core community of developers [...]"_

No license can fully protect users from developer inactivity or not knowing
where to go when they have problems. In this case the problem is particularly
acute because MySQL AB has been known as the go-to place for a long time, and
this may no longer be viable in the event of Oracle's acquisition.

EDIT: Simon Phipps (Sun) wrote an eloquent piece about the dual licensing
aspect: <http://www.webmink.net/2009/10/remarkable-reversal.htm>

~~~
protomyth
I am in awe of the thinking that a commercial option is needed for MySQL and
that Stallman agrees with that. It just seems so counter to all the comments
on the GPL.

I don't really see the support argument, a lot of software gets orphaned.
Companies need to have plans for this kind of stuff. They are better off here
because they might be able to hire people to fix compatibility issues until
they can migrate to another platform.

I think "major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform" is
kinda bs given the existence of postgresql.

~~~
rbanffy
Where is Richard Stallman and what did they do to him?

Now, on a more serious tone, a program dies when nobody uses or is interested
on it. MySQL will inevitably die someday, replaced by something better, much
like MySQL itself replaced mSQL. The GPL will make its source available
forever, protecting users who may be interested in continuing it.

As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its BSD licensing provides no such
protection. If people lose interest in it, it will probably evolve some more
in the form of EnterpriseDB and the source may be lost or locked up forever.

Isn't Drizzle a worthy successor to MySQL?

~~~
bad_user
> _program dies when nobody uses or is interested on it ... The GPL will make
> its source available forever ... As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its
> BSD licensing provides no such protection_

A software application also dies when you can't use it for your purposes
anymore, even when you're willing to pay-up. This letter from Stallman
actually highlights the hypocrisy behind GPL (not LGPL, just GPL).

PostgreSQL's source code will never be lost, and it saddens me that many
people perpetuate such a myth.

If people lose interest in it, there's always going to be an archive out there
with the latest released version. And I find it hard to believe that people
would prefer EnterpriseDB over PostgreSQL since the BSD license is what made
it shine in the first place.

MySql and PostgreSql are actual threats to Oracle's profit margins. Guess
which one they picked to kill.

~~~
rbanffy
"MySql and PostgreSql are actual threats to Oracle's profit margins. Guess
which one they picked to kill."

Interestingly, thanks to the GPL, they can't kill MySQL as long as someone
cares to maintain it.

------
Timothee
I'm confused as to why the European Commission is involved with this at all.
Anyone cares to explain?

Also, "Web 2.0 companies such as Google, Yahoo and Amazon.com". Good picks for
web2.0 companies… :)

~~~
jacquesm
Because the EC is a market in which Oracle intends to make a substantial
portion of its income ?

Anti-trust actually has some meaning here, it stands for not being able to own
a substantial portion of the market and then being able to gobble up your
competitors (directly, or, as in this case indirectly).

American companies invariably explain this is a lack of 'free market', but it
is one of the few cases where I think that some government involvement in
business is actually a good thing.

The EC got to sharpen it's knives in this respect on a very unwilling telco
industry, and they are fairly sharp when it comes to stating how far is too
far.

Whether Oracle has crossed the line or not in this respect is hard to tell,
IBM still has Informix/DB2, there are other open source alternatives but I
think a fork of MySQL is another way of resolving this.

But then there would have to be a pre-sun style company behind it to give it
legs, otherwise corporations would never go for it.

~~~
whatusername
From the Open Source perspective there is Postgres and the mysql code

On the commercial side there is IBM with DB2/Informix and Microsoft with SQL
Server

This doesn't seem like directly gobbling up your competitors..

~~~
jacquesm
Oracle, postgres and mysql are not in the same space. That leaves
informix/DB2.

Not being in the same space is maybe not enough for the anti-trust people
though, to them 'databases' are 'databases'.

------
dublinclontarf
And I present to you our version of Dr. Robert Stadler

------
jerome_etienne
Impressions to take with a pinch of salt as it has been written after a long
day:

when reading previous comments, the word "inconsistancy" comes to my mind.
Those comments seem to be written in a unpationated way. Their authors seems
rather for free licencing... but STILL!! In my understanding, they may be
ultra summarized in "tss, what this guy(stallman) is doing is unsuitable to
reach the free licencing goal". AKA he is inconsistant.

I find it rather rare to get this kind of reaction. Usually when fsf people,
it is quite pationated, up to religious.

PS: note the humor "free licencing" term to avoid the ridiculous "FOSS"
acronym

~~~
paulbaumgart
I think Stallman has always been something of a pragmatist, in the sense of
preferring widespread FOSS adoption even at the expense of some ideological
purity. That's why the LGPL exists, after all.

(NB: I think dispassionate/passionate are the words you're looking for.)

