software suggestions; open source
Michael D. Stemle, Jr.
manchicken at notsosoft.net
Fri Sep 14 13:15:07 UTC 2007
On Friday 14 September 2007 02:53:42 John L Fjellstad wrote:
> Knapp <magick.crow at gmail.com> writes:
> > Edges are always blurry in the real world. I guess the answer to your
> > question would have to do with what you get under each license. For
> > example with Firefox what would you get if you payed for it? If
> > without paying you get something that is incomplete, is full of ads,
> > or has limits, like you can not use it for profit or whatever, then I
> > would call it cripple ware, ad ware or perhaps to be nice sample
> > software. If you get everything and the software is totally free (as
> > in speech, not beer) then I would think of it as open source. I don't
> > think Linux would be were it is at today if there had been two
> > versions of it.
> I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what open source software
> is. Here are the definition
> The question of open source is not whether it is dual-licensed. The
> question of open-source is whether the software you receive follows the
> definition as laid out by OSI. MS open source initiative doesn't fall
> into the Open Source definition because you, as the receiver of the
> software, are in seriously restricted how you use the code. This
> doesn't apply to MySQL.
> With MySQL you have a choice of license. You can either accept it under
> GPL or under a propriatery license. If you accept the software under
> GPL, you get all the rights that GPL grants you. There is no 'sorta'
> open source about it. Of course, getting a software under GPL means
> that you (not being the copyright holder) have certain restrictions on
> how you distribute the software you receive. You are required to
> distribute the software under the GPL.
> Now, some companies can't distribute software under GPL for whatever
> reason. The copyright holders of MySQL have given these people another
> option. They can pay money to use the software under another license.
> The software itself doesn't get suddenly less 'open source' because of
> this. The people who received the software under GPL doesn't suddenly
> lose anything.
> In fact, any software can be relicensed by the copyright holder. It's
> just a matter of negotiating with the copyright holder and meeting their
> > I really don't want to spend my time paying 50 companies 5$ each to
> > make their software save what I have written or work in some needed
> > special way. LOL. For me the more whole, complete and open the better.
> Lets say you make $50/hr. To pay 50 companies $5, you would have to
> work 5 hours to cover the cost of the software. Let say you can get 50
> equivalent software products for free, but it will take you 500 hours to
> get them to work (during which time you are not doing you primary
> business). Which one do you honestly think is more cost effective?
> > I have chosen to support PostgreSQL. Maybe I am wrong in not being
> > into MySQL more. Have you read the wiki entry where it gets into the
> > licensing Issues of MySQL? Did you see where they say that they could
> > change the license but promise not to? What if I invest in their
> > software and they drop the GPL license? Will the community pick it up?
> > PostgreSQL works for me. It is totally free, well supported for free
> > by the community and unowned.
> You do realize PostgreSQL can change their license if their copyright
> holders decide it? You do realize any software can be relicensed if the
> copyright holder decide it? In fact, PostgreSQL being BSD means that
> someone, somewhere can be using a propriatery extension to PostgreSQL
> without sharing it with the community...
> If you want to argue for PostgreSQL, argue that it's better (for
> different values of better), rather pointing to the license as the
> deciding factor (when both licenses are open source by definition).
> John L. Fjellstad
> web: http://www.fjellstad.org/ Quis custodiet ipsos custodes
Or better yet, read what Free Software is. MySQL--according to its GPLv2
license agreement--is Free Software under the GNU General Public license.
More information about the kubuntu-users