On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to
> > >>their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via
> > >>patents.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > Uhhh perhaps we should verify this first?
>
> I think this does:
>
> http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html
>
> It includes an analysis from PHP's Sterling saying that MySQL
> interpretation that anything that "depends" on MySQL prevents such a
> client, and quotes from MySQL's CEO.
We have a new motto for the GPL. "A litigious license for litigious
people." ;-) Sorry, but I think MySQL's interpretation of the GPL is
unenforceable. As long as I don't distribute MySQL or their lib codes, I
owe them nothing. So, I can now reverse engineer their client libs.
Since I'm not distributing MySQL, I still owe them nothing. A user
installs MySQL for free under the GPL, they buy my product, everything
works. The fact that my product, in fact, "depends" on their GPL software
means nothing, as I did not distribute it. I can now charge a gazillion
dollars and not show anyone a single line of code.
At the same time, distribution makers are nervous about including MySQL,
especially the BSDs, because it appears they are trying to "poison the
well".
It's a lose - lose situation for MySQL.
