From: Stéphane Croisier Date: February 26 2004 3:57pm Subject: Re: License Name? List-Archive: http://lists.mysql.com/community/16 Message-Id: <6.0.3.0.0.20040226120424.051ca390@mail.jahia.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hello everybody, Just to say that I agree with most of the points mentionned by Mike in his= =20 previous emails (as of 20.02.2004). But to come back to a few specific points (and I am not a lawyer myself so= =20 please correct me if I am wrong ;-) ): At 16:42 23/02/2004, Zak Greant wrote: >On Feb 22, 2004, at 01:53, Mike Hillyer wrote: >>Now here's another question: MySQL uses the GPL, but it seems like this >>leaves a lot of room for interpretation. In addition, modifications are >>already being made to the license to allow for linking in PHP. Is it= perhaps >>time to implement the changes as "The MySQL License"? > >I think that this would increase the level of confusion about the= licensing. > >The license is the GPL, with optional exceptions. This makes it clear that= =20 >you can use it just as if it were stock GPL. If you need to do things that= =20 >go outside of the GPL, then you can look at the exceptions or purchase a=20 >license for proprietary use. > >Also, I like the GPL - I think it is still the best representation of the= =20 >community side of our business ideals. First of all I just want to say that I fully agree with the quid pro quo=20 philosophy that MySQL tries to currently put in place and promote. I myself= =20 manage a software company based on this principle ( Jahia: www.jahia.org=20 based on a collaborative source license: www.collaborativesource.org ).=20 However, in opposite to Zack position, I am clearly not convinced that the= =20 GPL license is the best license to implement such a strategy. 1) You play on the confusion created by the terms "derivative works" (what= =20 is really a derivative work at the end?) and "distribution" ("If I install= =20 internally a fail-over server with my own proprietary program with both=20 servers runnning MySQL, is it considered as an "internal distribution" and= =20 then subject to the viral effect of the GPL?) in order to be able to resell= =20 some commercial licenses. I am also not sure that making exceptions is the= =20 best way to reach your goal. Why PHP license is an exception and not Apache= =20 or Python or Zope... licenses=20 (http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses)?=20 GPL is not compliant with a lot of other OSI licenses so do you plan to=20 make exceptions for all these licenses? (cf: "If your software is licensed= =20 under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the=20 Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, then use our GPL licensed=20 version" available on: http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html ). 2) Free Software means free like in free speech but also like in free beer.= =20 You then can then not bill the final end-user. So you are trying to bill=20 the intermediaries (=3DISVs). This is ok for embedded libraries. But is a=20 database today really considered as an embedded library? Clearly no. The=20 choice of the database layer is often already made by the end-customers=20 according to various criterias (DBAs training, internal dev skills,...) and= =20 the ISV has to adjust his program to it. Not the opposite. Most of the=20 programs developed today are then database independant. As an ISV myself, I= =20 am ready to make some efforts to be MySQL compliant (aka test my software=20 with MySQL, adjust scripts if necessary,...) in order to easy the use of=20 MySQL for our end-customers if (and only if) they want to use your database= =20 layer but I will never pay myself for a database architecture choice that=20 is not dependant of me. 3) GPL was not created to enforce a strong quid pro quo paradigm. If you=20 want to enforce such a philosophy you will have, from one manner or the=20 other, to restrain the right of use of the end-user. The possible=20 limitation of the GPL is on (re)distribution not on the use of the program= =20 itself that is not restricted. This is not what I call a quid pro quo=20 principle that finally aims to to "value" and "bill" (by accepting payment= =20 in cash or in kind) the end-user pro-rata his use of the technology.=20 Whatever you try to do, you then have a serious concern in your commercial= =20 licensing model by keeping this free right to use MySQL. 4) You want to promote collaboration and community work but if you want to= =20 be able to continue to dual license MySQL, you (MySQL AB) have to own 100%= =20 of the IP or exploitation rights. Otherwise speaking you can not accept=20 third party contributions under a GPL agreement only. The contributor will= =20 also have to provide to you, in addition to the GPL, an unlimited right to= =20 sublicense his modifications. Else you may not be able to repackage his=20 contributions in your commercial distributions (or am I wrong?). Of course= =20 he can release a patch/module available on another web site but the main=20 goal of contributions in general is to integrate them in the core kernel=20 not to fork the project. Furthermore how the contributor is compensated for= =20 his work. If he develop some extensions, freely provide them to you, has he= =20 still have to pay to you a license fee if he has developed a proprietary=20 program running on top of MySQL? As I understand it, yes. Otherwise=20 speaking he is freely enhancing your product but still has to pay a license= =20 fee... Not quite a "collaborative" approach... and this has nothing to do=20 with the fact that his own program is closed sourced or not... (I hope you= =20 give them at least a free commercial license in such a case ;-) ) All these points to say that we faced exactly the same challenge a few=20 years ago while chosing our company business model based on an open code=20 base (hopefully we had no existing GPL code base and 100% of the IP=20 rights). We finally came to the conclusion that, for our type of software=20 (and I precise it), a "classical" dual licensing model based on GPL was not= =20 the right one. We wanted a viral effect on contribution not on code. We=20 wanted to be able to tax technology free riders (what we call the unvalue=20 added tax mechanism) and actively promote collaboration. That is why we=20 finally came to the conclusion that we had to create a new community source= =20 license (that we defined from a generic manner on collaborativesource.org ). >>When MySQL uses the GPL as "The GPL" it makes me wonder whose= interpretation >>of the GPL is final in licensing issues: is it MySQL AB's interpretation= or >>the FSF's that applies? Perhaps a naming of "The MySQL Open License" and >>"The MySQl Commercial License" would make it clear that the license is >>specific to MySQL and MySQL AB is the final decider. > >Neither party is the final interpreter of the GPL. The GPL is based on=20 >copyright law and neither MySQL AB or the Free Software Foundation has the= =20 >ability to interpret or pass laws - instead, this is generally the=20 >responsibility of a court. Exactly what Mike said... You play with the terms of the GPL as there is=20 nearly no legal case studies we can rely on to know exactly what can be=20 considered as a derivative work or not... However the idea of a MySQL Open License is not so bad. Keeping the base=20 foundation server under GPL but releasing some "professional" or=20 "enterprise" editions or complementary "add-ons" or "modules" under a more= =20 restrictive source license may be a good business model. The risk is=20 obviously that the community may decide to recreate your extensions under a= =20 GPL license and then to loose a part of your customers for direct new=20 incoming competitors.... but is it really a big risk giving the size that=20 MySQL AB reached today? My 2cts from an active promotor of MySQL vs other proprietary database=20 vendors ;-) St=E9phane Croisier - -- --- -----=3D[ scroisier at jahia dot com ]=3D---- --- -- - CEO - Jahia Solutions, 45 rue de la gare, 1260 Nyon (Switzerland) Jahia : The Open Java CMS and Corporate Portal Solution www.jahia.org Community and product web site www.jahia.com Commercial services company