NYCPHP Meetup

[inforequest]

Mitch Pirtle mitchy-at-spacemonkeylabs.com |nyphp 04/2004| wrote:

> Hans Zaunere wrote:
>
>> Selling a commercial app that uses MySQL is no problem. However, to
>>
>> distribute MySQL itself, a license or participation in the VAR program
>> is required.  This is true for both client libs and the server itself.
>>
>> The exception to this is if the application is GPL.  If the application
>> is publicly released under the GPL, then the GPL version of MySQL can be
>> distributed with it.  This, however, isn't generally an issue, since
>> most applications don't bundle a database. 
>
> This is what concerns me long term, as apps that appear open source on 
> the surface are actually some sort of hybrid shareware/proprietary mix.
>
> Not to sound like Stallman, but if it ain't GPL/LGPL, then it ain't 
> Open Source(TM).  And if it ain't really free (as in free speech, not 
> just free beer) then it should not try to appear like it is.  This may 
> not be MySQL's fault, but is definitely a critical factor that 
> businesses wishing to leverage open source technologies should be 
> aware of.
>
> If I feel like writing my own CMS, and at the end (say, a year later) 
> decide to sell it - then I am now at the mercy of MySQL's licensing 
> scheme instead of my own.  That's not freedom.  And if someone sells a 
> commercial product that requires your application, then you should 
> have an opportunity for paid support as a result.  Why complicate 
> licensing when the revenue would be better on the support side?
>
> And although I am a PostgreSQL bigot, this is not a dig at MySQL - 
> many other 'open source-like' projects are also taking this disturbing 
> stance.
>
> -- Mitch


In my view everyone should understand the free-beer vs free-software 
argument. It is core to the future of open source technologies and the 
benefits we have all enjoyed.

Free beer is not free - it is given to you so you will enjoy the beer 
and buy more beer and more beer. It is given to you so you will relax, 
and be more easily influenced. It has a catch, a hook, an ulterior 
objective. That is free-as-in-beer, free-as-in-cigarettes, etc. 
Free-as-in-speech is intended to mean truly free of further obligation 
or risk. Of course I can't say it as well as others, but others aren't 
explaining it here ;-)

Were it not for Open Source technologies (like PHP) training would be an 
even larger business than it is, and you all would need very large 
budgets in order to be so productive and innovative as you are. You 
would not enjoy such freedom from supervision and management as you have 
now - I suspect that if you are younger than 30 years old you may not 
have a grasp of this. Open Source has created a whole new world of 
maverick technologists innovating.... the traditional business world 
hates that. It's upsetting. It's "disruptive". It takes profits away 
from the owners.

I would add that from what I have seen, Microsoft can stop fighting and 
wait for the OS world to complicate itself out of its competitive 
advantage. We are past the point where the average business person can 
feel comfortable with OS licensing. The case for proprietary software 
has just about returned from the value, performance, and innovation 
space, and is settling back into the "nobody ever got fired for buying" 
space (substitute "sued" for "fired"). Corporate limited liability is a 
powerful thing - safer means better, in many cases.

Once that shift starts happening, how do OS companies hedge their bets 
to protect their futures? By preparing for the proprietary commercial 
space (however distasteful it might be). Can they do that with 
free-as-in-beer licenses? Nope.

-=john
-------------------------
John Andrews, free-as-in-self-employed.