first

1 files changed, 162 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/docs/selling-exceptions.md b/docs/selling-exceptions.md
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..b55eef2
--- /dev/null
+++ b/docs/selling-exceptions.md
@@ -0,0 +1,162 @@
+---
+Generator: 'texi2html 1.82'
+description: Untitled Document
+distribution: global
+keywords: Untitled Document
+resource-type: document
+title: Untitled Document
+...
+
+1. On Selling Exceptions to the GNU GPL {#on-selling-exceptions-to-the-gnu-gpl .chapter}
+=======================================
+
+> The practice of selling license exceptions became a hot topic when I
+> co-signed Knowledge Ecology International’s letter warning that
+> Oracle’s purchase of MySQL (plus the rest of Sun) might not be good
+> for MySQL.
+>
+> As the following article explains, my feelings about selling license
+> exceptions are mixed. Clearly it is possible to develop powerful and
+> complex software packages under the GNU GPL without selling
+> exceptions, and we do this. MySQL can be developed this way too.
+> However, selling exceptions has been used by MySQL developers. Who
+> should decide whether to continue this? I don’t think it is wise to
+> give major decisions about a free software project to a large
+> proprietary competitor, which might naturally prefer that the project
+> develop less rather than more.
+>
+> One thing that makes no sense at all is the idea of changing the
+> license of MySQL to something noncopyleft. That would eliminate the
+> possibility of selling exceptions, but allow all sorts of proprietary
+> modified versions. Wherever MySQL should go, it isn’t there.
+
+When I co-signed the letter objecting to Oracle’s planned purchase of
+MySQL[(1)](#FOOT1) (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.
+
+@firstcopyingnotice{{@footnoterule @smallskip Copyright © 2009, 2010
+Richard Stallman\
+ {This version of this essay is part of @fsfsthreecite}
+
+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 terms, for instance
+allowing its inclusion in proprietary applications.
+
+We must distinguish the practice of selling exceptions from something
+crucially different: purely proprietary extensions or versions of a free
+program. These two activities, even if practiced simultaneously by one
+company, are different issues. In selling 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. This article is
+concerned with cases that involve strictly and only the sale of
+exceptions.
+
+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.
+
+The KDE desktop was developed in the 90s based on the Qt library. Qt was
+proprietary software, and TrollTech charged for permission to embed it
+in proprietary applications. TrollTech allowed gratis use of Qt in free
+applications, but this did not make it free/libre software. Completely
+free operating systems therefore could not include Qt, so they could not
+use KDE either.
+
+In 1998, the management of TrollTech recognized that they could make Qt
+free software and continue charging for permission to embed it in
+proprietary software. I do not recall whether the suggestion came from
+me, but I certainly was happy to see the change, which made it possible
+to use Qt and thus KDE in the free software world.
+
+Initially, they used their own license, the Q Public License (QPL)—quite
+restrictive as free software licenses go, and incompatible with the GNU
+GPL. Later they switched to the GNU GPL; I think I had explained to them
+that it would work for the purpose.
+
+Selling exceptions depends fundamentally on using a copyleft license,
+such as the GNU GPL, for the free software release. A copyleft license
+permits embedding in a larger program only if the whole combined program
+is released under that license; this is how it ensures extended versions
+will also be free. Thus, users that want to make the combined program
+proprietary need special permission. Only the copyright holder can grant
+that, and selling exceptions is one style of doing so. Someone else, who
+received the code under the GNU GPL or another copyleft license, cannot
+grant an exception.
+
+When I first heard of the practice of selling exceptions, I asked myself
+whether the practice is ethical. If someone buys an exception to embed a
+program in a larger proprietary program, he’s doing something wrong
+(namely, making proprietary software). Does it follow that the developer
+that sold the exception is doing something wrong too?
+
+If that implication is 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—a conclusion I
+find unacceptably extreme—or reject this implication. Using a
+noncopyleft license is weak, and usually an inferior choice, but it’s
+not wrong.
+
+In other words, selling exceptions permits limited embedding of the code
+in proprietary software, but the X11 license goes even further,
+permitting unlimited use of the code (and modified versions of it) in
+proprietary software. If this doesn’t make the X11 license unacceptable,
+it doesn’t make selling exceptions unacceptable.
+
+There are three reasons why the FSF doesn’t practice selling exceptions.
+One is that it doesn’t lead to the FSF’s goal: assuring freedom for each
+user of our software. That’s what we wrote the GNU GPL for, and the way
+to achieve this most thoroughly is to release 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.
+
+Another reason we release only under the GPL is so as not to permit
+proprietary extensions that would present practical advantages over our
+free programs. Users for whom freedom is not a value might choose those
+nonfree versions rather than the free programs they are based on—and
+lose their freedom. We don’t want to encourage that.
+
+But 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.
+
+This is because of another ethical principle that the FSF follows: to
+treat all users the same. An idealistic campaign for freedom should not
+discriminate, so the FSF is committed to giving the same license to all
+users. The FSF never sells exceptions; whatever license or licenses we
+release a program under, that is available to everyone.
+
+But we need not insist that companies follow that principle. I consider
+selling exceptions an acceptable thing for a company to do, and I will
+suggest it where appropriate as a way to get programs freed.
+
+<div class="footnote">
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+### Footnotes
+
+### [(1)](#DOCF1)
+
+@raggedright James Love and Malini Aisola (Knowledge Ecology
+International), Richard Stallman (FSF), Jim Killock (Open Rights Group),
+letter to Neelie Kroes (Commissioner for Competition, European
+Commission), 19 October 2009,
+<http://keionline.org/sites/default/files/ec_letter_mysql_oct19.pdf>.
+@end raggedright
+
+</div>
+
+------------------------------------------------------------------------
+
+This document was generated by *tonghuix* on *March 25, 2016* using
+[*texi2html 1.82*](http://www.nongnu.org/texi2html/).\