"spir" <denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:mailman.3427.1302601308.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > On 04/12/2011 04:18 AM, dsimcha wrote: >> On 4/11/2011 9:55 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: >>> Doesn't mysql even have some retarded restriction like "it's GPL but may >>> not be used for commercial purposes so buy mysql if you wanna use it to >>> make money"? >>> >> >> According to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysql) it's dual >> licensed >> GPL or proprietary. (Actually it's a slightly modified GPL that's >> **less** >> restrictive than the vanilla one.) > > There is a misconseption (or rather rethorical playing on words) in the > open-source argumentation versus free software: a license like BSD is said > to be less restrictive. But in fact it is more privative to (end-)users, > in that it allows direct users of the software to deprive them from rights > that would have been guaranted by a free software license. >
Except such software is more likely to have just simply used some other library instead, something either more BSD-like or in-house proprietary. In other words, in actual practice, (L)GPL tends to discoruage people from actually making derivative works. So that still works against users gaining benefit from the software anyway.