MySQL Changes License To Avoid GPLv3

munchola writes "MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses for its database to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPLv3. CBRonline is reporting that Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, noting it was made 'in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.'"

This makes no sense

"However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license."

How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.

Re:

How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.

Well, if MySQL should be usable with GPL2, the "or later clause" may cause problems. For example a GPLv3-only-licensed patch would force MySQL to the new license.

Re:This makes no sense

For example a GPLv3-only-licensed patch would force MySQL to the new license.

This is irrelevant since MySQL require copyright assignment for any code they add (this is implied by the article which says that the MySQL company owns the whole copyright for MySQL).

Re:This makes no sense

Well, if MySQL should be usable with GPL2, the "or later clause" may cause problems. For example a GPLv3-only-licensed patch would force MySQL to the new license.

This makes absolutely no sense:

1. they have the right to REJECT the patch
2. they require copyright assignment so they could change the license anyway

Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forbid anyone from making a GPL V3 fork of MySQL)

The "commercial" term "confusion" they capitalize upon make many think that in order to make a commercial application they would have to get the proprietary version of MySQL.

That, of course, makes no sense at all. The FSF explains it very succintly [gnu.org], and David Wheeler quite recently explained it in a very detailed manner [dwheeler.com].

I disagree -- and the issue matters to me

Somehow, when a company capitalizes on the "commercial" confusion, it doesn't surprise me at all that they would make this "error" (I don't think it's accidental, I mean to suggest they are faking a confusion, as in the "commercial" term, in order to forb

Re:

It is very peculiar. I'm not sure what to make of that. I guess I'll do what I usually do, and wait for RMS to tell me what to think.

Removing "or later" protects author's rights ...

How did the old "version 2 or later" cause a problem then? All this does is restrict people from applying GPLv3 terms if they want to. It doesn't help anyone.

Removing "or later" protects an author's rights, it makes sure that the terms of the license m

Re:

But they're not forcing anything. Anybody with old code can still patch with code licensed by GPL version 3. All this does is restrict code released starting today.

We're going to have to do this with Adium as well

We're going to have to do this with Adium as well. We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3, and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2 since it's the license they submitted with.

I completely agree with this in either case. v3 is about pushing an agenda within a license from what I can tell, rather than sticking to what it is, a license. It's their license, fine, but pushing their own goals through it makes it even more restrictive to use the GPL than it already is. It's frustrating.

Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we

The GPL has always been about promoting the agenda and goals of the Free Software Foundation. Yes, it's "just" a license. Licenses are always about furthering goals. Do you think Microsoft doesn't have an agenda and goals with their licenses?

I'm not sur

Re:

Is it possible to mix "GPLv2 and later" and "GPLv2 only"?

IANAL, but it would seem to me that given a program consisting of two modules, one GPLv2+ and one GPLv2-only, the result would be distributable only under GPLv2.

Distribution under the terms of GPLv2 would satisfy the licensing requirements of both modu

Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we

We're going to have to do this with Adium as well. We are unable to contact some contributors to get their ok on using GPLv3, and rather than disrespect their contributions by pushing the bottom line of v3, we're going to have to keep using v2 since it's the license they submitted with.

I'm not sure you can change your license from "v2 or later" to "v2 only" without permission. If you accepted contributions to a project under a "v2 or later" license, then your contributors were placing their code under *that* license, and a change to a

Re:We're going to have to do this with Adium as we

I'm not sure you can change your license from "v2 or later" to "v2 only" without permission. If you accepted contributions to a project under a "v2 or later" license, then your contributors were placing their code under *that* license, and a change to a "v2 only" license would constitute releasing contributors' code under a license they didn't approve.

Umm, yes they did. You have to watch your inclusions here. "v2 only" is a subset of "v2 or later". Also note that the "v2 or later" language is not actually part of the license (or a license type itself); it's just a phrase that is traditionally used to introduce the license in many releases. It's equivalent to saying "This software is simultaneously released under v2, and v3, and v4, and v5, and ... v_n -- take your pick".

Once you have that situation, the release under v3 does not 'trump' or efface the release under v2; it is just an additional license possibility.

In the case we're discussing, anybody who picks up the code to reuse it can choose to either release the result under "v2 only" or under "v2 or later". In the the first case, they're picking up the "v2" option of the initial package. Remember, the initial package is still out there in the ether, available under v2, v3, v4, ..., vn, so the restriction only applies to the mod.

Note that this reading relies heavily on the use of the word OR in "... or later". It provides the choice to the person receiving the code as to which license they'll accept. If the original stipulation said "v2 AND any later version", we'd be in the sort of "v3 trumps v2" situation everyone seems to be worrying about - but if these issues ever came to trial, I seriously doubt any judge would accept as valid a release under a license that did not yet exist at the time the license was granted. (IANAL).

Re:

Also note that the "v2 or later" language is not actually part of the license (or a license type itself); it's just a phrase that is traditionally used to introduce the license in many releases.

More than that. It's the language that typically accompanies the copyright statement, and is the formal indication of the license granted by the copyright holder. The recipient can choose which set of rules they redistribute under, but I'm not at all s

Re: Agendas

While sticking with V2 is the right thing to dor for Adium, you may be ignoring the critical loophole in V2 that they are attempting to close.

Tivo has abused V2 in a novel way that privatizes their software. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tivoization [wikipedia.org] Tivo is

Re:

It is abuse. It is until they give me, the person who purchased their hardware the ability to change what software it runs. It's my hardware. They don't own it any longer. They should have no right whatsoever to tell me what I can and can't run on it.

Re:

If some company implemented some hardware that runs in a critical area of some system (say, an airplane's fly by wire system) and just allowed any software whatsoever to run on it, and someone put new software on it, many people could be injured or killed very easily.

Why would an airline allow anyone to install arbitrary, uncertified software on mission-critical hardware? And why would the vendor of that hardware have any interest in preventing the airline from installing whatever software they want?

But,really, th

Good for them.

I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.

Anyone who takes a step back and says "now wait a tick" to that kind of thing, I like. Maybe the GPLv3 won't be as bad as it seems, but that little "or any later version" clause is one that simply should not be included for projects of any magnitude.

what does GPL3 make worse ?

I have severe problems with the GPLv3 as-is; I feel they're trying to stuff a brand of morality and a system of thought down the throats of programmers who licensed their creations in good faith under the GPLv2.

"programmers in good faith" can still develop every bit with the "or-any-later"-clause. and free software is about a system of thoughts: users have a right to know how the software works, a right to tinker and a right to pass their changes on. nearly ever

Uhm. And?

Let me see.... So, they're changing the licence from now on. But I can still download a GPLv2-and-later licenced one that just isn't the latest version.

So, are they planning on adding features that will be incompatible with GPLv3?

Re:Uhm. And?

As a sidenote, having a licence that specifies "this version or any other later revision of this licence" is kinda braindead. That makes it possible to do all kinds of neat tricks to the licence, and you can't really do anything about it (Except change the licence for the next release).

Re:Uhm. And?

They just want to have the chance to look at v3 and see what it means for their business. I don't think that's an unreasonable possition to take, especially given that FSF is hell-bent on making the v3 license a big advocacy push against DRM and patents that might have substantial collateral damage among free software businesses.

overzealous and immoral FSF power grab

I'm laughing right along with you.

It's difficult to overstate how strong the ramifications of that "or any later version" clause are. For all intents and purposes, including that clause when you license your code is the next best thing to assigning copyri

'able to obtain'?

Now Tivo comes along and takes your software and with a legal trick circumvents your license, making sure nobody is actually able to obtain Tivo's modifications to your software.

Every bit of Tivo's source code is available, and anyone who wants to use it c

Freedom is scary

Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2, one can only imagine that those who cross out "or later" are fearful that the public may be given more liberty by the GPLv3 than they'd prefer them to have.

What kind of

Re:

Unless someone makes a specially modified MySQL for a closed device (TiVo?), redistributes the source code with the modifications but under the same license ("...GPLv2 or any later version"), and then you leverage that you have accepted the software under

Re:

Given the GPLv3 (however it's written) cannot reduce the liberty provided by the GPLv2

Sure it can. If you grant me the right to redistribute a derivative work from something you've written under GPLv2 or later, and GPLv3 says I can sell a work without

Re:

Unless RMS is being a total hypocrite by not sharing the secret to immortality he's discovered with anyone outside the FSF, no one can really predict whether or not the FSF will one day change into something completely different, but retain the right to re

Doublespeak

Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, on December 22, noting that the license for MySQL 5.0 and 5.1 had changed from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only". As he explained, this was "in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3".

To be more clear, what they have done was **take away the option** for other people to distribute the code under a GPL version higher than GPL2. Under the old wording, the company has no obligation to distribute their code under GPL3, even after GPL3 is released.

MySQL AB could continue distributing the code under GPL2 and leave others with the option of distributing their derivatives of it under GPL3. So their concern is what **other people** might do with their code, and has nothing to do with MySQL AB being forced to do anything.

What they are actually concerned with is a forking of their project by a group of developers who prefer GPL3 over GPL2. Anyone so inclined could still create such a fork using a version of MySQL distributed under the old wording (including the most recent current versions, if they received the code under the old license). They just wouldn't be able to use any code from MySQL that came after the license change. It would have to be a clean break, with no sharing of code after the license change.

Quietly?

"MySQL has quietly changed the license it uses... VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog..."

How does the VP of community relations announcing it on his blog qualify as 'quietly changing'? What do you want them to do, throw a bloody parade? Not everything is a secret plot to destroy OSS.

Yeah...

They wanted to get around that ugly part of the GPL that says "and when GPL v3 comes out, this software must be distributed according to its terms."

Unfortunately, I can't quite find it anywhere in the license, though everyone keeps complaining about it...

Oxymoronic

We are expanding your options by eliminating your options.

FTFA: MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only", in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3.

Doesn't this specificaly prevent them from using GPLv3 as an option in the future? I mean only means only right.

Re:No one is forcing them...

MySQL has today refined its licensing scheme from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only"

that is what they did.

Re:No one is forcing them...

I don't understand why you would state in your license agreement that it would be covered by future licenses anyway. It doesn't make sense. I can see having your license say "GPLv2 or earlier," because you already know the language of the earlier licenses. It seems silly, though, for your license to state it will be covered under versions that you can't possibly know whether or not you will approve of, because they haven't even been written yet. This just seems like a common sense move to me.

Re:No one is forcing them...

I don't understand why you would state in your license agreement that it would be covered by future licenses anyway. It doesn't make sense. I can see having your license say "GPLv2 or earlier," because you already know the language of the earlier licenses.

Because GPLv1 is more restrictive than v2. GPLv1 seems to imply that you cannot sell the code, but v2 clears up this misunderstanding. The 'or later' is attached to most GPL code because the standard license notification template attached to license says that the program may be distributed under the 'General Public License, version 2 or, at your option, any later version.'

Of course, this move does absolutely nothing to prevent someone from making a change to a version already licensed with the old wording from distributing MySQL under GPL v3 terms. Those versions already released have 'GPLv2 or later' moniker already attached and you can't change that now.

Re:No one is forcing them...

First, suppose you're writing project Z under the GPL and you do want it to move over to the new version of the GPL when it becomes available. Or that otherwise that you want to keep that option open.

Next, assume that project Z is fairly complex, and becomes popular, and receives contributions from numerous developers, not all of whom stick with the project.

Now, when the new GPL comes along, you have a potential problem: do all the contributors to the project need to approve a license change? Including all the ones you can no longer get in touch with? This is where the clause comes in handy: by submitting code under GPL2, they already [i]have[/i] approved a license change to GPL3, so you don't need their permission.

'Course, that can be avoided if you simply make all contributors hand over copyright of their contributions to those managing the project, or otherwise get their agreement ahead of time to make certain licensing changes in the future.

And then from a user's perspective: this clause increases what users can do with the program, it doesn't restrict users' choices. People can continue to treat the program as GPL2 licensed for as long as it's licensed that way, or they can treat it as GPL3 if there's some clause in GPL3 they find favorable. The only way it's potentially restrictive is that it allows derivative works to choose GPL3, which then prevents users of the derivative version from going back to GPL2.

Agreeing to terms that aren't yet defined is a bit odd - it's basically just a bit of faith in the FSF that makes that work, that whatever they do with the future versions of the GPL will be for the best. But what's happening now is people aren't sure that's the case.

GPLv3 in a nutshell

If I write a kernel driver and it gets incorporated into the official Linux source tree, and I don't explicitly release copyright of it to the Linux kernel project, then they need to talk to me before changing the license on that code. But if I license it

Re:

Well, MySQL seems to be rather tied up in the GPL (from Kaj Arno's blog: "MySQL has been part of the GPLv3 Committee B advising FSF since the GPLv3 draft was announced in January 2006."), so the "GPLv2 or later" was probably some sort of support for the GP

Re:

"I don't understand why you would state in your license agreement that it would be covered by future licenses anyway"

You trust the FSF to make changes carefully

It gives FSF a blank check, not a good idea ...

It gives more freedom to the code.

No, it gives the FSF a blank check, blank checks are not a good idea. You are *assuming* that future versions of the GPL uphold the rights you currently support and avoids overly restrictive requirements you do not support. You have no such guarantee with the "or later" wording, and you have little negotiating room when future licenses are developed. Basically if you only use a specific license you have bargaining power, you have rights.

Re:

I totally agree. People that use the ...or later clause are assuming that they agree with everything the FSF will ever include in the GPL license.

What I wish: They take everything they are going to put in GPL v3 into a license with a different name, so th

Not a blank check

The FSF has contractual obligation to me, and I guess thousands of other contributors, that limit what they can do to with the GPL. When you donate software to the FSF, you get a signed contract back stipulating what they can do with it. It obviously leaves some freedom to the FSF (as seen with GPL3), but it is not a blank check.

Re:

Everyone is very down on the whole Tivo thing, but I feel it is perfectly reasonable use of open source software. You take a mishmash of code and build a polished product that anyone can use with very little effort and no technical ability.

You wrote the so

Re:No one is forcing them...

Why not just stay with GPLV2?

They did. They set their license to be GPLv2 only.

Re:Hoopla!

I think it's possible you have no idea what free software is about. You seem to have a grasp of free as in free beer, but not free as in freedom. Saying "maybe here is the source and don't sell without my permission" has nothing to do with free software.

Re:

I understand your sentiment. But the rigid approach does have some merit. Does SCO ring a bell?

Re:Hoopla!

"has become"? Maybe you should do some research find out what Free Software means and has meant for as long as the term has existed... What you are suggesting is not even close to the definition pretty much everyone else uses.

Better 'rigid' than screwed

Good for them; I've never understood all the hoopla about licenses, anyway. FOSS has become way too rigid, IMO. What ever happened to "here's my software. here is (maybe) my source.

How many times will the community be screwed by license chicanery before

Re:

Fork because you have to FTP the very latest releases? Bit drastic, don't you think?

Forking a project is a weapon-of-last-resort. MySQL has never said that they won't use GPLv3, they just want to see the bloody thing first and decide for themselves.

Re:Thank You Speghetti Monster!

You're absolutely right that what has been done can be lost. Lost to companies that use DRM and patents to take away our freedom. "Tivoization" is just a proof-of-concept. Without GPLv3, companies will start exploiting loopholes like that more and more, until one day people realize it really can be taken away.