[startingup]

In the name of freedom, what the MySQL flavor of GPL has achieved is to give special powers of dual-licensing to the "original author" - all animals are equal, some animals are more equal than the others. The MySQL business model is entirely based on this special power they reserved for themselves. Stallman's defense of it (which is not new) is precisely why I have always been wary of using GPL code and am a passionate believer in BSD/MIT license approach to software freedom.

The time has come for a reevaluation of what constitutes real open source. I believe GPL should be excluded from it, and the MySQL business model is the classic example.

To those who answer "Linux", keep in mind that Torvalds unilaterally declared that applications that run on top of Linux (calling Linux via the standard libraries) are exempt from GPL. This is in effect LGPL, not GPL.

MySQL specifically takes the opposite tack: any application that uses the database using standard libraries comes under GPL, for distribution purposes.

LGPL and GPL are very different animals.

[blasdel]

keep in mind that Torvalds unilaterally declared that applications that run on top of Linux are exempt from GPL.

That text is just there to allay FUD, it's not a necessary part of the license in any way.

This is in effect LGPL, not GPL.

No it is not, not in any way, shape, or form. If you distribute something that dynamically links with the kernel, the GPL applies to you in full force.

To the kernel, applications running in userspace are data. They may link with libc to make syscalls, but that just means they throw interrupts that the kernel catches. Your userspace programs aren't derivative works of the kernel any more than your documents are derivative works of the last application you used to edit them.