MySQL 4

[Rodolfo J. Paiz]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 21:51 +0200, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> As Debian has shown this doesn't prevent one from shipping and using
> MySQL4.
> 

And the fact that any one organization--regardless of size, reputation,
or any other quality you choose to confer upon it--has decided that Plan
A is a good idea does not de facto force all other organizations to
agree. The basis of a free society, in fact.

Debian might believe it's a good idea and get burned later. Or Debian
might be "right" and this could cause Red Hat to lose some users,
possibly including you. The basis of a free market economy, in fact.

Linux is open. You don't like Red Hat's choices? Then (a) live with them
and quit bitching, (b) make some of your own changes, i.e. roll your own
MySQL RPM's which even for *me* is not that hard, or (c) change to
another distribution.

> I trust MySQL that they would not sue anyone [...]

In this case they explicitly changed the license to be more restrictive,
which is their right. But they changed the license to make it clear that
they would *not* approve of some people, in some cases, under some
circumstances, linking with PHP as had been done in the past.

So if they changed the license (a legal tool) to make some people quit
linking to their client libraries, and they later come to believe that
someone violated the new license, what leads you to believe that they
would not be willing to use a lawsuit (another legal tool) to serve
their purposes? In fact they have already sued people in the past, so
they *are* willing to use that tool at times. Perfectly within their
rights to do so, too.

If *you* are willing to trust them on blind faith that they will not do
so in this case, that is entirely your prerogative. But it is eminently
foolish of you to demand that others do the same.

Whether you are right or wrong is irrelevant. What matters is that,
*regardless* of whether you are right or wrong, any individual or
corporation (including Red Hat) has every right to disagree with you and
pursue a different course of action.

What part of that do you not understand or not accept as valid? Why do
you insist that Red Hat must act in accordance with *your* beliefs?

Cheers,

-- 
Rodolfo J. Paiz <rpaiz at simpaticus.com>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
URL: <http://listman.redhat.com/archives/fedora-test-list/attachments/20041007/644c1e10/attachment.sig>