Re: Josh Perry: Using the GPL as a Dual-Licensing Monopolistic Haven

[amicus_curious]

"Alexander Terekhov" <terekhov@web.de> wrote in message 
4B4B3692.63F8670C@web.de">news:4B4B3692.63F8670C@web.de...
> http://blogs.6bit.com/josh/2010/01/using-the-gpl-as-a-dual-licensing-monopolistic-haven/
...
> The GPL, with a goal to provide software that is free-as-in-speech, has
> been effectively used as a legal muzzle to strip freedom and competition
> to an extent that even closed-source proprietary software would have
> difficulty accomplishing.
There is a tendency on the part of GPL advocates to quietly equate GPL and 
FOSS itself to Linux and MySQL and sometimes Apache and PHP although the 
latter are not GPL licensed and would, in theory, allow for commercial, 
closed source, re-licensing of a derivative.  Open Office has been a 
latecomer to this alliance as well, but then the environment becomes much 
more problematic.

MySQL is an anomaly in the sense that the tactics used here are not really 
applicable to any other product or product area.  MySQL is maintained 
outside the application software area similarly to Linux itself.  It is a 
commercial impossibility to offer a special version of Linux or MySQL that 
would be altered to favor a single application product.  It would be a 
support nightmare.  The GPL is a one-trick pony in regard to general purpose 
computing with an OS in terms of Linux, a database in terms of MySQL, and 
office automation environment with OO, with an internet presence in the form 
of Apache and PHP.  Add Mono to the list if you are not such an anti-MS 
crusader as well.

But you cannot generalize product strategy or business case planning by 
abstracting from any of these products.  They are as unique in their world 
as the Microsoft products they try to supplant.