www/philosophy selling-exceptions.html

[Richard M. Stallman]

CVSROOT:        /web/www
Module name:    www
Changes by:     Richard M. Stallman <rms>       17/02/08 14:36:26

Modified files:
        philosophy     : selling-exceptions.html 

Log message:
        Delete the discussion of Oracle (that is too old now).
        
        Distinguish from dual licensing and from the section 7 exceptions
        to the GPL.
        
        Other minor changes.

CVSWeb URLs:
http://web.cvs.savannah.gnu.org/viewcvs/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html?cvsroot=www&r1=1.24&r2=1.25

Patches:
Index: selling-exceptions.html
===================================================================
RCS file: /web/www/www/philosophy/selling-exceptions.html,v
retrieving revision 1.24
retrieving revision 1.25
diff -u -b -r1.24 -r1.25
--- selling-exceptions.html     18 Nov 2016 06:31:39 -0000      1.24
+++ selling-exceptions.html     8 Feb 2017 14:36:25 -0000       1.25
@@ -9,15 +9,6 @@
 
 <p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/";>Richard Stallman</a></p>
 
-<p>When I co-signed
-the <a href="/philosophy/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf">letter objecting
-to Oracle's planned purchase of
-MySQL</a><sup><a href="#footnote">1</a></sup> (along with the rest of
-Sun), some free software supporters were surprised that I approved of
-the practice of selling license exceptions which the MySQL developers
-have used.  They expected me to condemn the practice outright.  This
-article explains what I think of the practice, and why.</p>
-
 <p>Selling exceptions means that the copyright holder of the code
 releases it to the public under a free software license, then lets
 customers pay for permission to use the same code under different
@@ -31,10 +22,34 @@
 exceptions, the same code that the exception applies to is available
 to the general public as free software.  An extension or a modified
 version that is only available under a proprietary license is
-proprietary software, pure and simple, and no better than any other
+proprietary software, pure and simple, and just as wrong as any other
 proprietary software.  This article is concerned with cases that
 involve strictly and only the sale of exceptions.</p>
 
+<p>We must also distinguish selling exceptions from dual licensing,
+which means releasing the program under a choice of licenses.  With
+dual licensing, each user can choose to use the program under either
+one of the licenses, or under both in parallel for activities that fit
+both.  (Thus, redistributors normally pass along both of the
+licenses.)  For instance, Perl was distributed for many years under a
+dual license whose alternatives were the GNU GPL and the Artistic
+License.  That is not necessary any more because version 2 of the
+Artistic License is compatible with the GNU GPL.</p>
+
+<p>In selling exceptions, the exception's terms are not a second
+license that the program is released under.  Rather, they are
+available only to those users that buy an exception.  The only license
+that the release carries is the GNU GPL, so this is not dual
+licensing.</p>
+
+<p>We must distinguish selling of exceptions from the usual kind of
+&ldquo;exception to the GPL,&rdquo; which simply gives all users
+permission to go beyond the GPL's conditions in some specific way.
+These exceptions are governed by section 7 of the GNU GPL.  Selling
+exceptions is legally independent of the GNU GPL.  To avoid confusion
+it is best not to refer to exceptions that are sold as
+&ldquo;exceptions to the GPL.&rdquo;</p>
+
 <p>I've considered selling exceptions acceptable since the 1990s, and on
 occasion I've suggested it to companies.  Sometimes this approach has
 made it possible for important programs to become free software.</p>
@@ -74,13 +89,14 @@
 that the developer that sold the exception is doing something wrong
 too?</p>
 
-<p>If that implication is valid, it would also apply to releasing the
+<p>If that implication were valid, it would also apply to releasing the
 same program under a noncopyleft free software license, such as the
 X11 license.  That also permits such embedding.  So either we have to
 conclude that it's wrong to release anything under the X11
 license&mdash;a conclusion I find unacceptably extreme&mdash;or reject
-this implication.  Using a noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an
-inferior choice, but it's not wrong.</p>
+the implication.  Using a noncopyleft license is weak,
+and <a href="/licenses/license-recommendations.html">usually an
+inferior choice</a>, but it's not wrong.</p>
 
 <p>In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the
 code in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further,
@@ -95,7 +111,7 @@
 under GPL version 3-or-later and not allow embedding in proprietary
 software.  Selling exceptions wouldn't achieve this, just as release
 under the X11 license wouldn't.  So normally we don't do either of
-those things.  We release under the GPL only.</p>
+those things: we release under the GPL only.</p>
 
 <p>Another reason we release only under the GPL is so as not to permit
 proprietary extensions that would present practical advantages over
@@ -103,7 +119,7 @@
 those non-free versions rather than the free programs they are based
 on&mdash;and lose their freedom.  We don't want to encourage that.</p>
 
-<p>But there are occasional cases where, for specific reasons of
+<p>There are occasional cases where, for specific reasons of
 strategy, we decide that using a more permissive license on a certain
 program is better for the cause of freedom.  In those cases, we
 release the program to everyone under that permissive license.</p>
@@ -120,11 +136,6 @@
 and I will suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs
 freed.</p>
 
-<h4>Footnotes</h4>
-
-<p id="footnote">This is a local copy of the document
-from <a 
href="http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf";>its
-original location</a>.</p>
 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above -->
 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" -->
 <div id="footer">
@@ -164,7 +175,7 @@
 
 <p class="unprintable">Updated:
 <!-- timestamp start -->
-$Date: 2016/11/18 06:31:39 $
+$Date: 2017/02/08 14:36:25 $
 <!-- timestamp end -->
 </p>
 </div>