Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing) - Mailing list pgsql-general

[sNip]
>>          The big question is this:  Has the GPL been violated by MySQL?
>
> The MySQL AB interpretation that any use of their software under the
> GPL inherits to mandating that your software be licensed under the GPL
> certainly seems controversial.

        Whether or not their interpretation is correct is less of a concern to
me than the fact that they've interpreted it in this way.  The reason is
that if I develop a product that isn't licensed under the GPL, and it
becomes very popular, then I would be worried about having to defend myself
in front of some court or arbitrator.

        Considering that this is more than a mere annoyance which can prove to
be very expensive and time consuming, I'd rather just avoid the whole mess
altogether by just avoiding using such a vendor's product altogether.

        Of course I'll attempt to get an official response from the legal
department of such a company before jumping to any conclusions.  In the
case of MySQL, if I wanted to develop a project that was not open source
and didn't comply with the GPL, I'd send a letter (or eMail) to MySQL and
ask for clarity on what my obligations would be with regards to their
licensing and my product (and would also include a general outline of how
my product will use MySQL).  If I don't like the obligations, then I'll
just not use their product (unless they're willing to make an exception for
me), but in the end I will require a written answer be sent through the
mail, complete with signatures since it's extremely easy to create doubt in
the courts around the authenticity of an eMail when you have the right
experts on your side (such as people like me).

> <http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml>
>
> In that interview, the indication is that by separating components
> into "client" and "server" bits, using CORBA, the GPL can be
> circumvented because the client and server aren't "linked."  Which is
> the opposite of what MySQL AB is telling people.
>
> The MySQL AB strategy doesn't seem to involve the "client-vs-server"
> issue.  Arguing that your client must be GPL-licensed because the
> server is wouldn't fly terribly far.  Instead, they only provide
> _client_ software in GPL-licensed form, as _that_ would "taint" the
> software you might link to it such that it would have to be
> GPL-licensed.

        It's all very complicated.

> <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=sapdb-general&m=106045880005921&w=2>
>
> What is very interesting is that they oppose attempts to circumvent
> this by someone prepared to write their own client.  (The discussion
> came up when SAP-DB users were distressed that they would no longer be
> able to get a LGPL-licensed client library, and were discussing the
> possibility of writing their own...)
>
>   "In this case, I would suspect that the intent of your middleware is
>   what would matter most in a court case. If the middleware appears to
>   mostly be in place to circumvent licensing restrictions, then it (I
>   believe) would not circumvent the license.  If the middleware is an
>   abstraction layer that simply allows for convenient access to a
>   variety of different data sources, then the license might be
>   circumvented."  -- Zak Greant <zak@mysql.com>

        Yikes!  That just hits me as rather vague.  Perhaps I need to look at
it more closely and think it through when my daughter's not watching the
Teletubbies.  =D

> What is also very interesting is that many/most of the uses of "client
> libraries" get embedded into PHP/Perl/Python modules, which leads to a
> mishmash of licenses that may (as with PHP) make redistribution of the
> client libraries nonpermissible.
>
> Long and short...  No, I don't see that the GPL has been "violated."
>
> But if the GPL is intended as a 'protector/encourager of free
> software,' their use of it seems to me to be about as distant from
> that _intent_ as possible.

        Keep in mind that (at least in Canada) contractual agreements are only
valid when an aspect called "consideration" exists, which means that both
parties benefit in some way (which must not be grossly unfair to one side).

        With all this mish-mash of various licenses, I wonder how
"consideration" would fit in to it all.  My feeling is that a court would
likely be considering this (along with many other factors) when examining
the bigger picture of intent in order to determine if there really was any
damage done to all parties involved.  Certainly one important aspect of
such a decision would be to understand what the various license owners knew
about how the industry works at present, which would probably keep the
lawyers busy for months if not years since most are non-technical.

DISCLAIMER:  I'm not a lawyer so I'm just going by assumptions based on
what I've learned about the law as a layperson over the years (and from
watching The People's Court).

--
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.