Subject: Re: AW: Restrictions in license
From: Arjen Lentz <arjen@mysql.com>
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:25:22 +1000

Hi Joerg,

On Mon, 2005-09-26 at 19:28, Joerg Friedrich wrote:
> Thanks for your well founded response. Btw, Andrew pointed out to me that I
> have used an inapt word describing a certain aspect of the GPL. I didn't
> mean to offend anybody, and I am neither pro nor con any licensing model. 
> 
> Pondering on the arguments that have come thus far, I guess I can follow
> Ians statement that OSD #6 might not make a strong case against a user
> limitation, since one could argue that the GPL also discriminates against
> commercial software product manufacturers and makes GPL'd software useless
> to them. As far as I understand, as soon as GPL'd software is introduced
> into a commercial larger works, a "commercial" software product is
> effectively turned into a "non-commercial" software product. Going one step
> beyond this, isn't this very similar to stating: "if you want to use this
> software in your commercial product, go to the owner and ask for a
> commercial license"? MySQL for example goes that way. 

MySQL doesn't, actually.
As someone else noted, GPL is quite alright with commercial products, it
is irrelevant whether money is charged or not. It merely requires
adherence to the GPL if the product is being distributed.

Perhaps confusion stems from the fact that the non-GPL MySQL license is
commonly called "commercial license". While that's maybe an unfortunate
choice of name, I think we're all wise enough to note that the naming
does not change the way the GPL works, only products that are not able
(or willing) to comply with GPL need get the non-GPL (commercial)
license.

Hope this helps.

Regards,
Arjen.
-- 
Arjen Lentz, Community Relations Manager
MySQL AB, www.mysql.com

MySQL Users Conference 2006 (Santa Clara CA, 24-27 April)
Call for Papers deadline 7 Nov 2005: http://www.mysqluc.com/