See also: last week's Letters page.

Letters to the editor

From:	 Gerard Fernandes <gerry@vigorsoft.com>
To:	 "'lwn@lwn.net'" <lwn@lwn.net>
Subject: Free Software response to .NET
Date:	 Fri, 13 Jul 2001 17:12:43 +0530

What is the whole point of talking about innovation when we have come back
to square one - playing catch up to .NET and providing alternatives to the
same thing, old wine in a new bottle, per-se?
 
It would have been much better if the Free Software response took up Java as
the question to which .NET is an improper answer and continue to put in
efforts behind Java.
 
Java has already provided a broad infrastructure for networked,
cross-platform, and distributed applications. And it has been available (not
to mention, working) for quite some time. Why not put in the effort that is
senselessly going into developing an Open Source version of .NET (and in the
course of this, leaving the Open Source foundation liable to law suits),
into developing better and more competitive Application Servers (like JBoss)
and therefore anull the .NET attack in the first place? It (.NET) is a
half-baked attempt of Microsoft to get back some ground lost to Java. And
the Open Source community is inadvertently playing into Microsoft's hands by
packaging Microsoft Wine in the OpenSource bottle. Where is the innovation
that you were looking for? Is innovation nothing but aping the competition?
If not, then why is the Open source sommunity so intent on re-implementing
.NET?
 
This has been and seems to be continuing to be, the single biggest hurdle
that Open Source is going to be facing - an internally fragmented developer
community. This can be the only explanation why Open Source cannot see that
they already have a winner (albeit, provided by Sun) and is instead trying
to compete with what can actually give Open Source a huge lead in terms of
distributed computing development infrastructure.
 
To put it in a nutshell, the Open Source community is its own biggest enemy.
 
Until the Open source community grows up and acts more mature, we are going
to continue to have emotional outbursts of this kind. What else can one make
of an attempt like this? Do you really need to build a ship with a hole just
because Microsoft has done it again?
 
Think about it.
 
regards,
Gerard.

From:	 "Jay R. Ashworth" <jra@baylink.com>
To:	 press@mysql.com
Subject: Trademark infringement press release
Date:	 Fri, 13 Jul 2001 11:00:09 -0400
Cc:	 letters@lwn.net

<sigh>

I see you folks have drunk the Kool-Aid<tm> as well.

Please understand something: mere existence of a domain name which has
a trademark in it does *not* in any way violate the Lanham Act, and is
therefore not a trademark violation, at least in the United States
(although IANAL).  If the holder of such a domain name engages in
confusion, dilution, or disparagement, then perhaps you might have a
case.

But, at least from my point of view, this insecure, ranting reaction is
just one more reason for *me* to spec PostGreSQL instead of MySQL.

If your users are dumb enough to confuse mysql.org and mysql.com, then
maybe they, and you, deserve the results.

If that sounds elitist, so be it.  I'm getting tired, after 20 years,
of listening to whining.

Cheers,
-- jra
-- 
Jay R. Ashworth                                                jra@baylink.com
Member of the Technical Staff     Baylink                             RFC 2100
The Suncoast Freenet         The Things I Think
Tampa Bay, Florida        http://baylink.pitas.com             +1 727 804 5015

   OS X: Because making Unix user-friendly was easier than debugging Windows
     -- Simon Slavin in a.f.c

From:	 Nathan Myers <ncm@nospam.cantrip.org>
To:	 letters@lwn.net
Subject: MySQL and the GPL
Date:	 Wed, 18 Jul 2001 00:20:07 -0700

The MySQL AB vs. NuSphere dispute is turning out to be really
interesting, and not because of anything about their products.
(PostgreSQL is a lot more interesting, as a database.)  What's 
interesting is how it points up fun features of the GPL.  

Apparently NuSphere has been violating the GPL by shipping their 
proprietary Gemini library linked with MySQL, and keeping the
source code secret.  They have also been giving binaries out via 
the web, protected by a sign-up sheet.

One feature this highlights is that if they had offered their
sources (under the GPL) only to people they had given binaries
to, they wouldn't have had to offer them to anybody else.  Hence,
it wasn't clear whether they actually had violated the GPL, until 
I verified that even their customers don't get the source code.  
(Of course they would not be able to keep their customers from 
mirroring it.)  

Even the sign-up web page is OK under the GPL; if you haven't 
given somebody the code, you have no obligations to them.  Again, 
though, once you give them the code, you can't keep them from 
mirroring the source code once they get it, so a sign-up page 
for GPL'd code tends to become voluntary.  

More interesting is what happens next.  You see, even if NuSphere
goes ahead and GPLs their library and puts sources up for FTP, they 
are _still_ in violation of the GPL.  Once you've violated the GPL, 
you have lost _all_ your rights under it.  NuSphere can still post 
their own code, but they can't legally distribute binaries linked 
with it any more, or even use it in-house.  Before they will have 
any rights under the GPL again, they will need forgiveness from 
the copyright holders.  Yes, from MySQL AB -- the company they are 
engaged in lawsuits and public spats with.

Amusingly, if NuSphere does put Gemini under the GPL, users will be 
able to distribute MySQL+Gemini while NuSphere still can't, until 
they get forgiveness. 

The longer they continue violating the license, the worse trouble
they're in, and the more forgiveness they'll need from MySQL AB.

This isn't one of those corner cases where the GPL is considered a 
bit iffy.  This is square in the middle, where it's firmly backed by 
copyright law.  If NuSphere angers MySQL AB enough, and the lawyers 
don't back down, we may see a nice, clear court test of the GPL under 
near-ideal circumstances.  That the MySQL database is involved is 
unfortunate, but since it doesn't really affect users much, that's 
not so bad.  

The GPL is a lot like an alligator snout.  You can hold it shut with 
one hand, but if you stick your head in it bites like hell.

--
Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and the above should not be taken as
legal advice.  Some dogs know more than I do.

"Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra.  Suddenly it flips
over, pinning you underneath.  At night, the ice weasels come."
                                        -- Matt Groening