felix@crowfix.com writes:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
>> What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
>> the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
>> commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
>> code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail
>> version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a
>> bit to include it, or rip it out.
>
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
>
> What am I missing?
If they do not hold a fairly unrestricted license to *resell* InnoDB,
then MySQL AB would be unable to sell "traditional proprietary
commercial licenses" to the combination of MySQL and InnoDB, which is
the way that they actually _make money_.
Based on the comments in Oracle's press release, it appears that MySQL
AB *does* have some form of contract with InnoDB Oy Inc to resell
InnoDB, but that contract expires some time next year.
If the contract is not renewed, then MySQL AB would only be permitted
to link MySQL (tm) to InnoDB under the conditions of the GPL, which
would mean that MySQL AB could only distribute a MySQL(tm)/InnoDB(tm)
combination under the conditions of the GPL.
This would essentially *destroy* their revenue model, which is
predicated on the notion of selling people a "traditional proprietary
license" to MySQL+InnoDB on the basis that they should be fearful of
GPL-licensed software as it always forces you to release your code
"for free." (There's some truth to this, but possibly not as much as
MySQL AB would have you believe.)
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="cbbrowne.com" in String.concat "@" [name;tld];;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/oses.html
Black holes are where God divided by zero.
