ie8 fix
madison

Dev Connection

Ed Burnette
Home / News & Blogs / Dev Connection

Stallman admits GPL flawed, proprietary licensing needed to pay for MySQL development

By | October 22, 2009, 12:14am PDT

Summary: Richard Stallman and others are trying to block Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL. Why? Because MySQL is covered by the GNU Public License (GPL), and the purchase has exposed a flaw in the GPL that Stallman says will cause a “major setback” to the development of the free database if the acquisition is allowed to go through. Score one for pragmatism over purity.

Software freedom activist Richard Stallman and others are trying to block Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL. Why? Because MySQL is covered by the GNU Public License (GPL), and the purchase has exposed a flaw in the GPL that Stallman says will cause a “major setback” to the development of the free database if the acquisition is allowed to go through.

Under the GPL, the copyright holder (usually the author) has special privileges that no one else has: they can use the code in a proprietary product. In an open letter to the European Commission, Stallman admits that revenue from this proprietary licensing is necessary to fund development for the free version (emphasis added):

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL…. 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 letter was signed by Richard Stallman and representatives from Knowledge Ecology International and the Open Rights Group.

Stallman’s position is exceptional when viewed against his long history of evangelizing Free (as in speech) software as the “morally correct choice” that trumps all other considerations. Compare the letter above with this sermon on his gnu.org web site:

Proprietary software developers have the advantage of money; free software developers need to make advantages for each other. Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it…. Proprietary software developers, seeking to deny the free competition an important advantage, will try to convince authors not to contribute libraries to the GPL-covered collection…. But we should not listen to these temptations, because we can achieve much more if we stand together.

We free software developers should support one another. By releasing libraries that are limited to free software only, we can help each other’s free software packages outdo the proprietary alternatives. The whole free software movement will have more popularity, because free software as a whole will stack up better against the competition.

Even if MySQL were owned by Oracle because of its purchase of Sun, the database would still be Free Software. Anyone could use the source code, build their own version, and distribute it to others. But finally Stallman has recognized that may not be good enough because somebody has to pay for this stuff. Score one for pragmatism over purity. Hallelujah.

(Photo illustration by Zack Whittaker)

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

More from “Dev Connection”

Topics

GPL, MySQL, Richard Stallman, Stallman, Tools & Techniques, Open Source, Databases, Management, Enterprise Software, Software, Data Management, Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette is a software industry veteran with more than 25 years of experience as a programmer, author, and speaker. He has written numerous technical articles and books, most recently "Hello, Android: Introducing Google's Mobile Development Platform" from the Pragmatic Programmers.

Disclosure

Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette is a Manager of Mobile Development at SAS. However the postings on this site are his own and do not represent the positions, strategies, or opinions of his employer.

Biography

Ed Burnette

Ed Burnette has been hooked on computers ever since he laid eyes on a TRS-80 in the local Radio Shack. Since graduating from NC State University he has programmed everything from serial device drivers and debuggers to web servers. After a delightful break working on commercial video games, Ed reluctantly returned to business software. He currently develops enterprise software for Android phones and tablets.

In his copious spare time, Ed writes and speaks about all kinds of technology and software. His most recent books include the Eclipse IDE Pocket Guide from O'Reilly and Hello, Android: Introducing Google's Mobile Development Platform from the Pragmatic Programmers.

67
Comments
Add Your Opinion

Join the conversation!

Just In

PostGreSQL
davidr69 29th Oct 2009
I know MySQL has a large user base, but I would recommend moving to PostGreSQL. It's perhaps easier said than done, but there are features that PostGreSQL has had for years which MySQL is only catching up to now. Have you seen how many languages are supported for stored procedures? I've even written dynamically loadable functions as shared objects in C.

The bottom line is that Oracle would be completely out of the picture and there would be no worries about GPL vs. proprietary.
View in thread
0 Votes
+ -
You really believe that?
epitax 22nd Oct 2009
Look at Red Hat. $5.1 Bln market cap and they're not making *any* money with free software? There is plenty of money out there for consulting services and support. Just ask IBM.

Proprietary software is not religion.

The problem with Sun was that they couldn't commit either way. Red Hat is committed to free software and they profit from it, consistently.

I suppose that in your dream world, Microsoft would be the best suitor to purchase Sun. That might explain why Microsoft Codeplex advisor Monty Widenius doesn't like the deal. Unless of course, Oracle sells MySQL to somebody else.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
The issue is ownership and fairness
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
Red Hat makes money by consulting and support, not by building proprietary closed-source versions of the Linux kernel. They couldn't do that because they don't own the copyright. But for the sake of argument, imagine one person or company *did* own the copyright to Linux. They *could* make proprietary versions. Now suppose they were bought by HP or IBM or Novel or Microsoft. Then those companies could fold Linux innovations into their own proprietary operating systems, even though the kernel is licensed under the GPL. And *nobody* *else* *could*, even if they had previously contributed to the project. That's what I mean by the flaw, and it's the reality with MySQL that Stallman and others are warning about.
0 Votes
+ -
Except that...
Joe_Raby 22nd Oct 2009
RHEL is not the same as Fedora. Certain parts of RHEL are proprietary, and you can't get RHEL for free. Ditto for SUSE.

Ubuntu also has certain components that are also not licensed under the GPL, which is why they had to create a separate installer for the FLOSS variant.
0 Votes
+ -
huh?
h.pillay@... 22nd Oct 2009
All of RHEL is on GPL except for the trademarked images and logos. If your definition of proprietary included trademarked images and logos then we are talking about completely different things. The vast majority of people know that the source code of RHEL is freely downloadable (and hence you can compile and use it) and cannot be construed to be proprietary.

Perhaps you are referring to third party applications included in the RHEL distribution - like flash, proprietary Java/JDK. Those are not Red Hat packaged products per se, but from others, but included as a service to subscribers of RHEL.
0 Votes
+ -
No really true Ed. Lets use your example.
No_Ax_to_Grind 22nd Oct 2009
"Then those companies could fold Linux innovations into their own proprietary operating systems, even though the kernel is licensed under the GPL. And *nobody* *else* *could*, even if they had previously contributed to the project."


Just not true.

Nothing stopping any other open source person or group from doing exactly the same thing. The only difference in the end is that they have to give their code away and that has always been true of the GPL. Nothing has changed. The only difference is that a for profit company can do it by virtue of dollars instead of a large community.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Sorry, I disagree
Ed Burnette 23rd Oct 2009
"Nothing stopping any other open source person or group from doing exactly the same thing."

What's stopping them is copyright law and the wording of the software license!

"The only difference in the end is that they have to give their code away and that has always been true of the GPL."

What you say is true for everybody in the world *except for the person or company that holds the copyright on the code*. They have unlimited rights, including the right to change the license and create a proprietary fork of formerly GPL'd code.(*) I mean, it's their code so they should get to decide what to do with it, right? I think what the letter is trying to say is that that's not fair, i.e., not a level playing field.

(*) And yes, I know the original unforked GPL-covered code would not go away. Somebody could run with that and create something much better than the proprietary fork. It has happened before. But the fork-er would not have the same rights as the copyright holder for those parts the fork-er didn't rewrite.
0 Votes
+ -
Business Model
jerry.bloom@... 22nd Oct 2009
In the final analysis the customer pays anywhow, whether its for the software or for the support services. It's surely just a different business model we are talking about. The incentive for a commercial developer is to minimize or eliminate support costs. It follows that a FOSS developer has an incentive to ensure there's support required...
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Ensure support is required?
Ed Burnette 23rd Oct 2009
You mean by writing buggy, hard to use code? That reminds me of a Dilbert cartoon.
0 Votes
+ -
Nice, if pitiful, try.
TriangleDoor 22nd Oct 2009
Mr. Stallman and his co-writers are saying not
that the GPL is flawed, but that Oracle's purchase
of MySQL, hobbled by its dual proprietary license, is
flawed.

A-for-effort on the spin, though. Share some scones with
Mikey, you adorable troll, you.
0 Votes
+ -
GPL Flawed
michael@... 22nd Oct 2009
For what it's worth, I see myself as part of the usually silent majority on
this issue, and I concur absolutely with the author's views.

Do we all agree MySQL is a good thing? If we do, then we surely have to
accept that the way they have chosen to fund their development is a
good thing? We cannot re-write history and say they could have achieved
what they have achieved using a services only model.

MySQL is not hobbled by a dual proprietary license - it was enabled by it.
As is SugarCRM, and so many of the successful commercial open source
innovations we see today.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
"Not hobbled... enabled"
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
Well put. A lot, not all but a lot, of MySQL's technology was funded by that dual license. It's a fact of life that some companies (hint: the big ones with money to spend) won't touch GPL. They like paying for things, they like commercial licenses, and they like to know who to call when something goes wrong.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
The license is flawed, not the purchase
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
Websters defines a flaw as "A crack or breach; a gap or fissure; a defect of continuity or cohesion".

With GPL there's a huge gap between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the user. This breaks the continuity of the free and open software community, breaking the cohesion between the holders and non-holders, the haves and have-nots.

In the business world of mergers and acquisitions you can never predict who's going to end up owning what. You can't say that certain owners are not worthy and prevent them from owning things. What you *can* do is choose a license that guarantees freedom for everyone regardless of the owner. If MySQL were licensed under a different license like Apache or BSD or MIT, then everybody would have the same rights and freedoms. It would be a level playing field.

PS: Who's Mikey?
0 Votes
+ -
PS: Who's Mikey?
markbn 22nd Oct 2009
His brain's nickname
0 Votes
+ -
Other than the right to dual-license a derivative work, what else?
NetArch. 22nd Oct 2009
Ed,

You say "With GPL there's a huge gap between the rights of the copyright holder and the rights of the user." Other than the right to dual license a derivative work, what else are you talking about? What constitutes that "huge gap"?

You say "user", but that's a misnomer: A simple "user" who does not redistribute a GPL'd work isn't even affected by the limitation you refer to. Don't you mean programmer or developer?
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Re: Other than the right to dual-license a derivative work, what else?
Ed Burnette 23rd Oct 2009
"Don't you mean programmer or developer?"

I've tried to argue for the distinction between users and developers before, but the consensus seems to be that it's an arbitrary distinction because any user could potentially become a developer (either by learning how or by hiring somebody to do it on their behalf). Does running "configure" and "make" make you a developer? How about writing a macro in a spreadsheet? It's a fine line that moves and is probably not legally relevant anyway.

"Other than the right to dual license a derivative work, what else are you talking about?"

Anything. For example if I bought the MySQL database I could take its query optimizer and plug it into my proprietary database without even putting a notice somewhere.
0 Votes
+ -
For coverage of this topic that's *not* anti-GPL FUD...
TriangleDoor 22nd Oct 2009
...see "Reasons I Believe the Community Should Support
the Oracle-Sun Deal" (http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?
story=20091021164738392).

0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Please point out the FUD
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
I challenge you to point out any "FUD" in what I wrote.
0 Votes
+ -
"Huge Gap"
NetArch. 22nd Oct 2009
I pointed out what I believe to be FUD in my post above.
0 Votes
+ -
Not FUD? Did you read it?
PorkPrick 22nd Oct 2009
Go read the comments on that Groklaw article. Find the one titled
"Whois: Monty" and read PJ's response, where she says she suspects that
Monty is a double agent for the benefit of Microsoft.

PJ says in another comment that she thinks Stallman must have been
tricked into signing the letter to the EU.
0 Votes
+ -
Sounds like "someone" is complaining because ...
kd5auq 22nd Oct 2009
"someone" won't be able to "make money" off other's work.
This is like the "rich" complaining about taxes!
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Making money off other's work
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
Do you use a computer in your job? A telephone? A pencil? Any free software? Did you invent those? If not, then you're profiting from other's work aren't you?

Building upon and enhancing and innovating on prior research and software and tools is natural and essential. I don't see your point.
0 Votes
+ -
I think you mean
akulkis 23rd Oct 2009
Like the AFDC queen complaining about a reduction in welfare benefits. (i.e. her money comes from OTHER PEOPLE's work. People who earn their own way through life DO have a right to complain about taxes being raised if the purpose of those taxes is just to transfer that money to other people who haven't earned it).
0 Votes
+ -
wow...stallman...what????
ljenux-23043766007667558234416105604265 Updated - 22nd Oct 2009
HE DID IT!!!!

HE POOPS IN HIS MOUTH!!
ON HIS WHOLE LIFE WORK!!!

HOOORAAY...

loool

sorry admins, i couldn't resist happy
0 Votes
+ -
Does anyone care about MySQL anymore?
No_Ax_to_Grind 22nd Oct 2009
PostgreSQL seems to be the open source DB of choice.
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Yep, they still do
Ed Burnette 22nd Oct 2009
PostgreSQL might be better in many ways but MySQL seems to be the "default choice" in projects that need a no-cost database. I encounter it all the time in my day job.

Lately I've been steering people towards H2 and SQLite instead of MySQL if their needs are modest. They're simpler and have a permissive license.
0 Votes
+ -
Its entrenched...
storm14k 22nd Oct 2009
I have thought about using PostgreSQL more but it just doesn't seem to be as readily available when I need it (mainly shared hosting) for the projects that would make use of it.
0 Votes
+ -
misleading article about GPL
Linux Geek 22nd Oct 2009
There is no GPL flaw here folks!
It is the LGPL license that allows dual licensing that's flawed.
This is why GPL is better and GPLv3 or Alfredo GPL are best.
Oracle can easily fix this issue by commiting 1 billion dollars to MySql and spinning it into a foundation.
0 Votes
+ -
Another genius
croberts 22nd Oct 2009
And do tell... why would Oracle want to "fix this" as you put it? They are after intellectual property rights and market share.
0 Votes
+ -
no need for a 'genius'
Linux Geek 22nd Oct 2009
They are after intellectual property rights and market share.
Oracle got Star Office, Solaris and Java.
Also they got good spark hardware.
That is a very good deal that will make lots of money in the future.
0 Votes
+ -
Specifically databases, though..
daftkey 22nd Oct 2009
"Oracle got Star Office, Solaris and Java.
Also they got good spark hardware.
That is a very good deal that will make lots of money in the future."

But what specifically in MySQL do you think Oracle is after? They already own technology leaps and bounds above anything MySQL has to offer.
0 Votes
+ -
market share
Linux Geek 22nd Oct 2009
Oracle hopes to migrate mysql users to paid Oracle.
0 Votes
+ -
Why would they buy Sun/MySQL for that?
daftkey 22nd Oct 2009
..it seems like they threw a lot of good money after bad if that's the case.. The single major component in MySQL that would have allowed it to cannibalize Oracle's business was already in Oracle's warchest (innodb - already owned by Oracle)..

Before this acquisition, MySQL had no roadmap other than through innodb on which to compete with Oracle on performance.. Therefore, Oracle already had as much influence on this roadmap as they would need to stall the development of MySQL.. Buying the rest of the technology doesn't give Oracle any advantage on that front.

On the other hand, where Oracle *might* get some traction is if they're able to change the syntax and stored procedure language in MySQL to make it more compatible with Oracle. Then they might get some advantage by making Oracle a "drop-in" replacement for MySQL when those customers do outgrow the open-source software. In this context, MySQL customers should be happy for the Oracle acquisition, because if Oracle manages to bring PL/SQL and/or Java Stored Procedures support into MySQL, this would definitely be an improvement on what is currently supported (which is poor at best, unusable at worst).
0 Votes
+ -
there will be paid support to upgrade to Oracle
Linux Geek 22nd Oct 2009
and then to charge for Oracle
0 Votes
+ -
Why should they give away 1 billion
midcapwarrior@... 22nd Oct 2009
That's just foolish. If they want to give to a charity so be it. But giving mysql and the money? Can't foss stand on it's own?
0 Votes
+ -
to prove their good faith
Linux Geek 22nd Oct 2009
otherwise M$ can just buy some FOSS outfit and cease distribution in order to kill it.
0 Votes
+ -
Prove "good faith" to non-paying customers?..
daftkey 22nd Oct 2009
It's hard to see how Oracle could really benefit by spending $1B to prove "good faith" to customers who have no interest in paying for the software that they use.. I would call that a very boneheaded (if not irresponsible) move, especially on the part of a publicly-traded company..

Now if Oracle were to instead spend $1B on R&D to bring extra functionality into their flagship database management system, ERP systems, or other commercial offerings, I can see where they might actually be able to recoup that investment.. Not that it would do MySQL customers any good..
0 Votes
+ -
So what?
No_Ax_to_Grind 22nd Oct 2009
You could do the same with the vast millions you make from open source.
0 Votes
+ -
Good god why? MySQL is dying.
No_Ax_to_Grind 22nd Oct 2009
Not to mention no one is going to throw away a Billion dollrs for zero return. You say Billion like you have a clue just how much money that is. sheesh...
0 Votes
+ -
He knows how much a billion is..
daftkey 23rd Oct 2009
..it's exactly the amount of Money Oracle could afford to throw in the crapper.. er.. "invest" in an Open Source project that directly competes with their flagship product in order to make it compete "better" against their flagship product..

Sounds like a sound business plan to me.. happy
0 Votes
+ -
Contributr
Um... regular GPL allows dual licensing
Ed Burnette 23rd Oct 2009
Look it up: In the US at least, the copyright holder can release or not release their code under any license they please. There are plenty of projects that have been released under GPL + something else. (Usually because of some bone-headed incompatibility between GPL and almost every other license.)
0 Votes
+ -
only LGPL allows it
Linux Geek 23rd Oct 2009
GPL does not allow just to take the code and relicense it under different terms.
0 Votes
+ -
Read it again - You're not getting the key distinction..
daftkey 23rd Oct 2009
What Ed is saying is in line with the difference between the GPL and LGPL. Under GPL, you're correct - you are not allowed to take someone's code, modify it and then re-license it under different terms.

However, the distinction you're missing is that the ORIGINAL developer of the code (who owns the copyright - developers "downstream" of the original author do not own the copyright to the GPL'd code) or anyone who purchases the copyright (in this case, Oracle will own the copyright to MySQL) are not bound by the GPL, because they can choose to license their work under whatever terms they choose. This includes taking MySQL as it stands now, and incorporate it into completely closed-source software.

This is the gap in rights granted by the GPL (really, it's a "gap" in copyright law, upon which the GPL is based) that Stallman is grumbling about.
0 Votes
+ -
The GPL, FSF, and FOSS is as flawed as Communism
Joe_Raby 22nd Oct 2009
Except that you have a backwards hippy backing it.
0 Votes
+ -
The third kind...
Disymus 22nd Oct 2009
I always believed there were two kinds of men in this world, men who talk smart, and men who talk gibberish. Then I met a third kind.
0 Votes
+ -
The opposite of capitalism is NOT communism!
NonCartoonist 22nd Oct 2009
Capitalism is a type of economic structure. Communism is a form of government. Governments that are not communist are often socialist or republics. There are other options.

Besides, a form of development where everyone has the ability to contribute freely and is capable of deciding for themselves which tasks they will work on today is DEFINITELY formed after the model of democracy.

A form of development that has one elite group that determines the future paths the entire group will take, where the money will be spent, and which inidividuals will be working on which tasks--and where they will sit while they do it and how long they will sit there while they do it--DEFINITELY is formed after the model of COMMUNISM.

FOSS is equivalent to democracy.
Proprietary is equivalent to communism (or dictatorship, depending on the size of the leadership).

Can it be any plainer than that?
0 Votes
+ -
Right but...
Disymus 22nd Oct 2009
Yes proprietary is somewhat dictatorship, but don't take communism as dictatorship.
Democracy would be keeping silent and waiting for law to intervene if someone is hitting in your ass. But FOSS is not like that. It makes it's own rules. GPL is the best example. GPL itself advocates FOSS.

0 Votes
+ -
Absolutely correct, but............
Ole Man 22nd Oct 2009
Attaching a name to something does NOT change it's essence.

Capitalism, Communism, Socialist, Republic, Democracy, Totalitarianism, Dictatorship, Marxism, Government, Corporation.......... are all comprised of humans, mostly ethical, but many are unethical. It takes VERY FEW words to define the essence of all intent and purpose.

It seems the age of slick lawyers and greed have encompassed us all, to determine and enforce our paths. The GPL may well be swallowed by this root essence of greed.

One very good example: The word "lobby" has been assigned to replace the word "bribe", literally changing the course of a great nation. The magic of communication, and after all, software is but a machine language.
0 Votes
+ -
You don't know very much about communism..
daftkey 22nd Oct 2009
"Capitalism is a type of economic structure. Communism is a form of government."

No, both of these are ideologies, neither of which (thank god) exist in their purest form anywhere on earth. Yes, we spent a few decades in the last century with a bunch of "commie pig governments" vs a bunch of "capitalist dog governments", but "capitalism" and "communism" describe the ideologies of these governments, not the governments themselves.

"Besides, a form of development where everyone has the ability to contribute freely and is capable of deciding for themselves which tasks they will work on today is DEFINITELY formed after the model of democracy."

"Democracy" only has to do with how leaders are chosen (by the rule of many, a vote, etc) and has no bearing on how those leaders rule. To understand the difference, ask yourself if you get to freely vote for your government, if you said yes, then you live in a democratic society. The fact that your government makes you do things you would rather not do (like pay taxes, acquire prescriptions for some drugs, drive within posted speed limits) doesn't change the fact that your government is democratic.

Now the GPL DOES follow the ideology that "those who can improve the code should do so and are free to do so, and must pass that code on to others who can benefit". Sounds very similar to Marx's "from each according to ability, to each according to need", wouldn't you agree?

The only thing really democratic about FOSS is that nothing will be done if there isn't a critical mass of people wanting it to be done.. The problem with this form of democracy is that, if that critical mass of people are all non-programmers, and there's no incentive for programmers to do what the non-programmers tell them to do, then nothing will be done.

"A form of development that has one elite group that determines the future paths the entire group will take, where the money will be spent, and which inidividuals will be working on which tasks--and where they will sit while they do it and how long they will sit there while they do it--DEFINITELY is formed after the model of COMMUNISM."

You've described a dictatorship (which is a form most corporations take - leaders who aren't usually elected by those they lead, giving out orders to the workers).

True this is how communist governments wound up behaving, but it is not how the ideology of communism worked. Nowhere did Marx say "someone will lead and dictate what work every worker should do".. in fact he was prescribing voluntary work.. Unfortunately, just like the GPL, this ideology doesn't work in its purest form.
0 Votes
+ -
Feudalism
Saurondor. 22nd Oct 2009
Over time I've come to believe closed source models have more similarities with feudalism than either communism or capitalism. Being capitalism the least applicable of all. Because you never actually own what you just paid for. Which is contrary to capitalist belief. Only in software do we see the purchased good tell the buying how and when to use it. More so it even holds the right to terminate the license at will.

If you look at it from a medieval feudalistic point of view the similarities are outstanding. You have a liege lord who controls everything under his domain. Dictates how things are done and tells who can use his land (software) and under what cost. You as a serf have no authority over the recently leased land (software). You can't transfer it to other serfs. You can't sublease it to other serfs. The liege lord can take the land from you at any given time or move you to another piece of land. Should that piece of land be a bit more rocky and your plow not strong enough. Well that's your tough luck, get a new plow. Maybe your cart can't cross the bridge to your new parcel. That's just to bad too.

Of course the liege lord has his loyal lords(corporations and OEMs). Owners of large amount of serfs who can work the lord's land. So they get special treatment from their liege. Heck he just might even listen to a few of their needs. But the average serf like you and I. Well we're just out of luck aren't we.
0 Votes
+ -
Two flaws in your argument - but your point is still a good one..
daftkey Updated - 22nd Oct 2009
That's actually a good analogy. There are a couple of small differences between the software world (I'll extend this to any place where Copyright is concerned, because this also applied to Books for as long as copyright existed)..

1) Under most Feudal systems, the serfs had no power to enforce their side of any agreement between them and their liege. Commercial software, while mostly bound by a "standard" EULA (whose legality has always been questionable, as there have been no cut-and-dried precedents set as to their enforceability), for larger software contracts, these terms are often negotiable, and in a lot of cases, customers have been able to exercise their rights under these agreements.

2) As far as software companies being able to "take away" your right to use software (and music, a'la iTunes, and Books a'la Kindle) at will, this is something that you've agreed to as a condition of using the software.. For most software, you have the choice of using other software.. The serfs didn't have such a choice available to them. This is more akin to the modern landlord/tenant relationship than that of feudal systems.

In any case, software licensing, the idea that vendors can take away your use of the software and such is somewhat of a pink elephant.. There aren't a lot of situations where this has actually happened, simply for the fact that, unlike the serfs, the software customer still has ultimate bargaining chip - their wallet.

Even in the monolithic enterprise market where licenses are expensive and very heavily enforced by software manufacturers, and where new features aren't nearly as dramatic as what you see in iterations of consumer software, closed-source software developers spend a lot of money and effort on R&D, Support, and other "niceties" to please their customers. You'd be hard pressed to find a liege spend any amount of effort trying to win over the hearts and minds of his serfs. Money rules - this is very much a capitalistic statement.
0 Votes
+ -
PostGreSQL
davidr69 29th Oct 2009
I know MySQL has a large user base, but I would recommend moving to PostGreSQL. It's perhaps easier said than done, but there are features that PostGreSQL has had for years which MySQL is only catching up to now. Have you seen how many languages are supported for stored procedures? I've even written dynamically loadable functions as shared objects in C.

The bottom line is that Oracle would be completely out of the picture and there would be no worries about GPL vs. proprietary.

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

Blog Roll

Blog Archive

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix