Jan Wieck wrote:
> > "Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed, will either have
> > to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved open source
> > licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL."
In this case, it is almost saying that if the application requires
MySQL, it has to be commercial, even if you don't distribute MySQL and
expect it to be part of the operating system --- again, reach as far
with the GPL as we can.
> > Sometimes people say "But I cannot open source my application!" and
> > they may have valid reasons for this. Our response is then: "If you
> > have a valid reason not to be open source, wouldn't that same
> > reasoning apply to us?".
> >
> > This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of Quid pro Quo -
> > if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed
> > source, we are commercial.
This is call cute sounding, but to be fair, it is easy for a tool
company to promote GPL because you have revenue options by distributing
non-GPL versions, while application writers do not have many revenue
options for non-GPL versions.
I don't want to sound too harsh. MySQL is trying to make money, and
that is great. PostgreSQL tries to help all companies make more money.
What bothers me is the shading of the truth that MySQL is a company that
develops all code in-house, and uses the GPL as a way to gain market
share and the threat of GPL as a way to gain revenue. I think 1% of
MySQL users understand that, though I think that number is increasing
with the new MySQL 4.0 GPL library licensing. I guess it bothers me
that MySQL AB has been so successful at obscuring that fact.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
