Thread: About GPL and proprietary software
I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases legal? 1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee. 2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server. 3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code). If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a proprietary company? Kaarel
Kaarel <kaarel@future.ee> writes: [...] > If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any > other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a > proprietary company? This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer. -Doug
Cross-posted to pgsql-advocacy in response to Doug's comment that: >This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take >your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer. Responses to pgsql-advocacy... I hate cross-posting, too. The information is pertinent to postgreSQL because our BSD license is a "selling point" for us. We need to know the differences between BSD and other licensing schemes. --elein On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 03:26:24PM +0300, Kaarel wrote: > I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But > there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am > particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? > For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only > works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases > legal? > 1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves > it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps > the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee. > 2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary > software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server. > 3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD > which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code). > > If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any > other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a > proprietary company? > > Kaarel > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote: > I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But > there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am > particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? > For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only > works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases > legal? > 1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves > it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps > the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee. > 2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary > software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server. > 3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD > which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code). > > If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any > other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a > proprietary company? Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list???? Be that as it may: IANAL, but according to my understanding (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries has not broken the GPL. (2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has broken the GPL. (3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network link, etc., does not break the GPL. Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is to avoid issues like this. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA 4 degrees from Vladimir Putin
Kaarel writes: > I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But > there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am > particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? > For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only > works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases > legal? That depends on whether the MySQL client library is LGPL (up to version 3) or GPL (from version 4 on). But a PostgreSQL forum is probably an entirely inappropriate place to discuss this. -- Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > IANAL, but according to my understanding > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > has not broken the GPL. Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an LGPL. But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it gets even more complicated. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > IANAL, but according to my understanding > > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > > has not broken the GPL. > > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an > LGPL. Well, there's this: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL and this: http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not hereditary..." Dr. Dean Edell
After a long battle with technology,ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson), an earthling, wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote: >> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But >> there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am >> particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? >> For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only >> works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases >> legal? >> 1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves >> it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps >> the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee. >> 2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary >> software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server. >> 3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD >> which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code). >> >> If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any >> other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a >> proprietary company? > > Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a > PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list???? > > Be that as it may: > IANAL, but according to my understanding > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > has not broken the GPL. > (2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has > broken the GPL. > (3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network > link, etc., does not break the GPL. > > Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is > to avoid issues like this. While your understanding is common, it does not appear to conform with the understanding that MySQL AB has of how the GPL applies to their product. They appear to think that software that "speaks to" their database, _by whatever means_, needs to be licensed under the GPL. When some SAP-DB users proposed writing their own "database drivers" that talk to SAP-DB (which is being renamed "MaxDB", marketed by MySQL AB) using network links, and licensing it under the LGPL, so that they would not be forced to license their own software under the GPL, they were warned that lawyers might be sent after them for doing this. All in all, MySQL AB seems pretty jealous about guarding their proprietary code... And yes, that's all talking about "someone else's product." But if someone comes visiting to figure out whether PostgreSQL might be more suitable for their purposes, they may have to talk about the "less suitable" software in order for everyone to see where it fits in. It might be that PostgreSQL would NOT be more suitable, but it can take some discussion to figure it all out. -- If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/ LOGO is not a language. It's a way to simulate 'skid marks' made by turtles with serious bowel control problems.
The world rejoiced as meskes@postgresql.org (Michael Meskes) wrote: > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: >> IANAL, but according to my understanding >> (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries >> has not broken the GPL. > > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an > LGPL. > > But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it > gets even more complicated. No, actually, it's pretty simple. There is (as likely as not) NO issue with the server. The issue is that the CLIENT software is unavailable in other than GPL and other "private license-for-money" forms. In order for you to use MySQL, you have to link GPLed libraries in with your code. There are no LGPLed libraries; that would break MySQL AB's business model. There is considerable unhappiness surrounding this vis-a-vis SAP-DB; SAP AG had had the server software GPL-licensed, and the client software licensed under LGPL. Along with renaming it "MaxDB," MySQL AB is apparently eliminating LGPL-licensed libraries, which is causing some consternation in the user community. Which will probably point some system integrators over to use either Firebird or PostgreSQL... -- (format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org") http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html "My soul is more than matched; she's overmanned; and by a madman! Insufferable sting, that sanity should ground arms on such a field! But he drilled deep down, and blasted all my reason out of me! I think I see his impious end; but feel that I must help him to it. Will I, nill I, the ineffable thing has tied me to him; tows me with a cable I have no knife to cut. Horrible old man! [...] Oh, life! 'tis now that I do feel the latent horror in thee!" --Moby Dick, Ch 38
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:59, Christopher Browne wrote: > After a long battle with technology,ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson), an earthling, wrote: > > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote: > >> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But > >> there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am > >> particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive? > >> For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only > >> works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases > >> legal? > >> 1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves > >> it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps > >> the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee. > >> 2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary > >> software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server. > >> 3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD > >> which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code). > >> > >> If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any > >> other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a > >> proprietary company? > > > > Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a > > PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list???? > > > > Be that as it may: > > IANAL, but according to my understanding > > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > > has not broken the GPL. > > (2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has > > broken the GPL. > > (3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network > > link, etc., does not break the GPL. > > > > Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is > > to avoid issues like this. > > While your understanding is common, it does not appear to conform with > the understanding that MySQL AB has of how the GPL applies to their > product. They appear to think that software that "speaks to" their > database, _by whatever means_, needs to be licensed under the GPL. That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that doesn't sound right. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "Man, I'm pretty. Hoo Hah!" Johnny Bravo
Ron Johnson wrote: > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote: > > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > > > IANAL, but according to my understanding > > > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries > > > has not broken the GPL. > > > > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an > > LGPL. > > Well, there's this: > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL > and this: > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html > > Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives > an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok > w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area. Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that. We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt libedit someday for that very reason. I researched this a little recently for Joe Conway. -- 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
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 07:37:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > Well, there's this: > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL > > and this: > > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface > > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html > > > > Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives > > an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok > > w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area. > > Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread > the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that. > > We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt > libedit someday for that very reason. I was under the impression that the GPL only covers distribution, not use (as seems normal for copyright). In other words, as long as you don't ship readline with PostgreSQL you're fine. If the user wants to install it on their machine with readline linked in that's their problem entirely. Now, I think that people have tried to argue that if a library is the *only* implementation of the interface then it should be considered linked in because otherwise you're just using dynamic linking to get around the GPL. But since PostgreSQL doesn't depend on readline (it is optional after all) I don't see the issue. However, for the MySQL client library since the software strictly depends on that library, the fact that it's distributed as a seperate tarball does not absolve you of the GPL requirement. Obviously MySQL wouldn't have done their licence this way if they didn't think it was enforcable. Maybe they have themselves an exception or variation on the GPL? But it's still confusing. -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > "All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good > men to do nothing." - Edmond Burke > "The penalty good people pay for not being interested in politics is to be > governed by people worse than themselves." - Plato
Attachment
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote: > > Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread > > the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that. > > > > We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt > > libedit someday for that very reason. > > I was under the impression that the GPL only covers distribution, not use > (as seems normal for copyright). In other words, as long as you don't ship > readline with PostgreSQL you're fine. If the user wants to install it on > their machine with readline linked in that's their problem entirely. > > Now, I think that people have tried to argue that if a library is the *only* > implementation of the interface then it should be considered linked in > because otherwise you're just using dynamic linking to get around the GPL. > > But since PostgreSQL doesn't depend on readline (it is optional after all) I > don't see the issue. However, for the MySQL client library since the > software strictly depends on that library, the fact that it's distributed as > a separate tarball does not absolve you of the GPL requirement. > > Obviously MySQL wouldn't have done their license this way if they didn't > think it was enforceable. Maybe they have themselves an exception or > variation on the GPL? But it's still confusing. The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough. Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html): What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two modules into one program"? Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other program. Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them. What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL dynamic linking restriction enforceable. A more exotic issue is: what if you create a libreadline library that has the same linking signature as GNU readline, but it does nothing. Can you then say the binary doesn't _require_ GNU readline? As you can see, saying something _requires_ something else to run is a very hard argument to make, and even if the argument can be made, saying that the function calls themselves force the GPL is a great reach, I think. It isn't even clear that the GPL is enforceable in saying you can't modify the source code and ship a closed source version. But if it is, reaching from there to say you can't dynamically call a GPL library is really strange. How is that different from calling the Linux kernel, which is GPL? In fact, most system calls are accessed through a libc function call. Of course, GNU libc is LGPL, but it makes calls to a GPL kernel. Does the LGPL kernel remove the GPL dynamic linking restriction to the kernel? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think a line can clearly be drawn, and hence the unenforceable of a the dynamic linking GPL restriction. On a (very) side note, there are some things that you grow to like more and more over time (hopefully PostgreSQL), while there are others you grow to like less and less over time (GPL, RMS). The RMS case is particularly poignant because new folks to open source really seem to like him, but the longer they are involved in open source, the less they seem to like him. I have seen this regularly in my travels. In fact, when someone wrote a biography of RMS, the author was most surprised that he could find so few of his acquaintances who would talk about him. Another big part of the success of PostgreSQL is that people seem to like us more and more over time, while proprietary vendors seem to generate the opposite effect. :-) -- 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
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:14:30PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote: > > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an > > LGPL. > > > > But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it > > gets even more complicated. > > No, actually, it's pretty simple. >... > The issue is that the CLIENT software is unavailable in other than GPL > and other "private license-for-money" forms. > > In order for you to use MySQL, you have to link GPLed libraries in > with your code. There are no LGPLed libraries; that would break MySQL > AB's business model. Well, isn't that what I said? Okay, granted, you put it into words much better, but it looks like I wanted to say the same. MySQL has to GPL the libs to make sure they can make money with there other license. What I meant to say with LGPL is that this license is for such a usage, not that MySQl has LGPLed stuff. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!
> > >This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take >your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer. > > The question in it self was more general than PostgreSQL and MySQL. However as I currently need to work with both of them I wanted to make clear the actual differences caused by licensing between the two products. The other thing is that it is probably a little easier to explain and understand if there are concrete examples. I asked this list because I didn't want to subscribe to yet another list for this matter and pgsql-general sure has the competence to answere that kind of questions. It has to have. I asked this list and not MySQL list because I am subscribed to mysql-general and comparing the two list content I like more what I see in PostgreSQL lists and the concrete example is about PostgreSQL as much as it is MySQL. I don't think at a PostgreSQ conference you would guide me to MySQL conference when I asked this same question would you? Licensing is quite difficult to understad (at least for me) yet a very important aspect of software development. I don't intend to ruine anybodys day I just want a small discussion which in the end would explain the cases when the licensing aspect of these two concrete products will play an important role in developing software. Kaarel
On 01/09/2003 10:07 Kaarel wrote: > [snip] Licensing is quite difficult to understad (at least for me) yet a > very important aspect of software development. I don't intend to ruine > anybodys day I just want a small discussion which in the end would > explain the cases when the licensing aspect of these two concrete > products will play an important role in developing software. With the withdrawal of LGPL from MySQL 4.x, you might find yourself either having to GPL your application or buy a commercial license if your application has their client libraries compiled in. About 18 months ago, when I started designing the ERP product I'm currently working on, I rejected MySQL on purely technical grounds (and that was compared to PostgreSQL 7.1!). So far, that seems a very good decision. My application is basically designed to use PostgreSQL (although if someone offered me enough money, I expect I could port it Oracle or DB/2) and it's BSD-style license avoids the possibilty of me or my clients having to pay a $400 licence fee to use a "free" program. -- Paul Thomas +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+ | Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller Business | | Computer Consultants | http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk | +------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the > closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot > of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough. > > Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html): > > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two > modules into one program"? > > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on > the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they > are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if > one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other > program. > > Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they > form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the > whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or > won't, do that, you may not combine them. > > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a > legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, > pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the > semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are > interchanged). > > You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that > disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL > dynamic linking restriction enforceable. Name calling ("control freak") is childish. If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia). Combined works dynamically linked to GPL libraries involve untested legal issues. The legal issues are complex, and when law and technology collide it can be hard to predict the outcome. RMS believes the GPL is enforcable in this case, but until someone is willing to be sued by the FSF over this no one will know for sure. (None of the GPL violators the FSF has pursued have been willing to risk a trial so far.)
Doug Quale wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>
>>You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
>>disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
>>dynamic linking restriction enforceable.
>
> Name calling ("control freak") is childish.
Eh? Bruce is "childish" for opining that RMS is a "control freak"?
What is the proper terminology for those that call people who think
RMS is a control freak ("childish")?
> If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a
> GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a
> gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF
> General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia).
A bit hypersensitive, aren't we?
Mike Mascari
I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists. Jon On 1 Sep 2003, Doug Quale wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the > > closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot > > of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough. > > > > Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html): > > > > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two > > modules into one program"? > > > > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on > > the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they > > are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if > > one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other > > program. > > > > Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they > > form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the > > whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or > > won't, do that, you may not combine them. > > > > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a > > legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, > > pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the > > semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are > > interchanged). > > > > You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that > > disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL > > dynamic linking restriction enforceable. > > Name calling ("control freak") is childish. > > If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a > GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a > gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF > General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia). > > Combined works dynamically linked to GPL libraries involve untested > legal issues. The legal issues are complex, and when law and > technology collide it can be hard to predict the outcome. RMS > believes the GPL is enforcable in this case, but until someone is > willing to be sued by the FSF over this no one will know for sure. > (None of the GPL violators the FSF has pursued have been willing to > risk a trial so far.) > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly >
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:52, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the > GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a > GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are > linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any > other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am > not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists. Exactly. If you use GPL headers, then you are tying (i.e. "linking" in the grammatical sense) yourself to that GPL software, and *that* would mean that you must GPL your own software. > Jon > > On 1 Sep 2003, Doug Quale wrote: > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > > > The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the > > > closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot > > > of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough. > > > > > > Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html): > > > > > > What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two > > > modules into one program"? > > > > > > Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on > > > the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they > > > are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if > > > one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other > > > program. > > > > > > Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they > > > form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the > > > whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or > > > won't, do that, you may not combine them. > > > > > > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a > > > legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a > > > > > > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > > > proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, > > > pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the > > > semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are > > > interchanged). > > > > > > You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that > > > disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL > > > dynamic linking restriction enforceable. > > > > Name calling ("control freak") is childish. > > > > If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a > > GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a > > gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF > > General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia). > > > > Combined works dynamically linked to GPL libraries involve untested > > legal issues. The legal issues are complex, and when law and > > technology collide it can be hard to predict the outcome. RMS > > believes the GPL is enforcable in this case, but until someone is > > willing to be sued by the FSF over this no one will know for sure. > > (None of the GPL violators the FSF has pursued have been willing to > > risk a trial so far.) -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "For me and windows it became a matter of easy to start with, and becoming increasingly difficult to be productive as time went on, and if something went wrong very difficult to fix, compared to linux's large over head setting up and learning the system with ease of use and the increase in productivity becoming larger the longer I use the system." Rohan Nicholls , The Netherlands
Ron Johnson wrote: >On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:52, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > > >>I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the >>GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a >>GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are >>linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any >>other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am >>not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists. >> >> > >Exactly. If you use GPL headers, then you are tying (i.e. "linking" >in the grammatical sense) yourself to that GPL software, and *that* >would mean that you must GPL your own software. > > Would that mean that any software compiled with GCC that uses standard headers and released commercially is now under the GPL ? Hence BSD and other free licences ? There is a huge body of code that this applies to that is not deemed covered by the GPL today and they're going to be awfully upset if you're right. G
On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 10:39, Gianni Mariani wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:52, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > > > > > >>I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the > >>GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a > >>GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are > >>linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any > >>other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am > >>not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists. > >> > >> > > > >Exactly. If you use GPL headers, then you are tying (i.e. "linking" > >in the grammatical sense) yourself to that GPL software, and *that* > >would mean that you must GPL your own software. > > > > > > Would that mean that any software compiled with GCC that uses standard > headers and released commercially is now under the GPL ? > > Hence BSD and other free licences ? > > There is a huge body of code that this applies to that is not deemed > covered by the GPL today and they're going to be awfully upset if you're > right. Well, fortunately, IANAL, so if I'm wrong, I can blame it on that. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "My advice to you is to get married: If you find a good wife, you will be happy; if not, you will become a philosopher." Socrates
1) GCC has an exception in it's clause that says that code inserted from GCC itself is not covered by the GPL 2) The Linux libraries are LGPL, not GPL 3) BSD has no problem with this, as all of their headers are BSD. They include small amounts of code from GCC, but that is covered under the exception #1 above. Now, what many people don't realize is that _statically_ linking with glibc DOES require your program to be GPL or LGPL. Many companies are linking illegally (I used to work for one). The remedy is not "all your code are belong to us" but rather "You must stop doing this". EXCEPTION - you can statically link proprietary software to LGPL code provided you also distribute your unlinked binaries as well, so the end user could relink to a later version if they wanted to. Jon On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Gianni Mariani wrote: > Ron Johnson wrote: > > >On Tue, 2003-09-02 at 08:52, Jonathan Bartlett wrote: > > > > > >>I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the > >>GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a > >>GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are > >>linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any > >>other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am > >>not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists. > >> > >> > > > >Exactly. If you use GPL headers, then you are tying (i.e. "linking" > >in the grammatical sense) yourself to that GPL software, and *that* > >would mean that you must GPL your own software. > > > > > > Would that mean that any software compiled with GCC that uses standard > headers and released commercially is now under the GPL ? > > Hence BSD and other free licences ? > > There is a huge body of code that this applies to that is not deemed > covered by the GPL today and they're going to be awfully upset if you're > right. > > G > > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your > joining column's datatypes do not match >
ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson) wrote: > That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that > doesn't sound right. Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be running their server software, on the one side, and their client access software, on the other. Both sides are linked to GPL-licensed software. Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB, and that's where they are now "biting" people on this. This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL support in version 5 back in June. -- let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html "It is not enough to succeed, others must fail." -- Gore Vidal
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 21:06, Christopher Browne wrote: > ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson) wrote: > > That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that > > doesn't sound right. > > Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be > running their server software, on the one side, and their client > access software, on the other. Both sides are linked to GPL-licensed > software. > > Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB, > and that's where they are now "biting" people on this. > > This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL > support in version 5 back in June. Yes, in the specific case of MySQL, but it could also mean IE con- necting to a GPL web server, or OE speaking to a pop server. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA "Experience should teach us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the Government's purposes are beneficent. Men born to freedom are naturally alert to repel invasion of their liberty by evil-minded rulers. The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning, but without understanding." Justice Louis Brandeis, dissenting, Olmstead v US (1928)
<blockquote cite="midm3ekz1gt4a.fsf@chvatal.cbbrowne.com" type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><pre wrap="">That "_by whatevermeans_" seems to include "network link", and that doesn't sound right. </pre></blockquote><pre wrap=""> Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be running their server software, on the one side, and their client access software, on the other. Both sides are linked to GPL-licensed software. Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB, and that's where they are now "biting" people on this. This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL support in version 5 back in June.</pre></blockquote><br /> Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Orhow would one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and without buying MySQL commercial license?<br/><br /> Kaarel<br />
On Monday 08 September 2003 19:30, Kaarel wrote: >> Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB, >> and that's where they are now "biting" people on this. >> >> This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL >> support in version 5 back in June.</pre> > > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > without buying MySQL commercial license? There might be a "pure perl" DBI driver for mysql, in which case that's probably under the Artistic Licence. As far as using PHP+MySQL, it's not a matter of use, but distribution. I can freely download MySQL and PHP, set them up and build an application in whatever way I like. If, however I distribute that application, linked to the GPL'd MySQL client then my application becomes GPL (assuming the GPL is legally valid and I haven't bought a licence from MySQL). What happens with an application built on top of MySQL+PHP I couldn't say. I'm guessing your PHP scripts can be distributed under any licence you like, but you couldn't distribute MySQL+PHP with them. Anyway, their intention is that you *can't* distribute your application without either GPL-ing it or buying a licence. One of the reasons why a BSD licence is more friendly from a business point of view, although it does mean companies can release proprietry extensions that they keep private. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
> Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > without buying MySQL commercial license? I don't think so, especially since you can ship them separately. If I just have code telling my computer to use the DBI module, but don't actually ship the DBI module, I'm not using any MySQL code. The end-user is the one combining the works (they could just as easily have dropped in a closed-source driver with the same interface), which you have permission to do under the GPL. When programming w/ C it's different because #include literally includes MySQL's header files into your code, thus making the binary a derivative work. The source is not a derivative work, since it doesn't make use of MySQL code, but the binary is, subjecting it to the GPL (which means you have to distribute code). Jon
Richard Huxton wrote: > What happens with an application built on top of MySQL+PHP I couldn't say. I'm > guessing your PHP scripts can be distributed under any licence you like, but > you couldn't distribute MySQL+PHP with them. > > Anyway, their intention is that you *can't* distribute your application > without either GPL-ing it or buying a licence. One of the reasons why a BSD > licence is more friendly from a business point of view, although it does mean > companies can release proprietry extensions that they keep private. And contribute them to the community after 1-2 years, which has happened often. -- 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
On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 15:25, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Richard Huxton wrote: > > What happens with an application built on top of MySQL+PHP I couldn't say. I'm > > guessing your PHP scripts can be distributed under any licence you like, but > > you couldn't distribute MySQL+PHP with them. > > > > Anyway, their intention is that you *can't* distribute your application > > without either GPL-ing it or buying a licence. One of the reasons why a BSD > > licence is more friendly from a business point of view, although it does mean > > companies can release proprietry extensions that they keep private. > > And contribute them to the community after 1-2 years, which has happened > often. But they don't have to. The Unix Wars were caused by large companies that took BSD and made proprietary extensions. Thus, there are pit- falls to both GPL & BSD (not to mention straight-up proprietary licenses). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------- Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net Jefferson, LA USA An ad run by the NEA (the US's biggest public school TEACHERS UNION) in the Spring and Summer of 2003 asks a teenager if he can find sodium and *chloride* in the periodic table of the elements. And they wonder why people think public schools suck...
Ron Johnson wrote: > On Mon, 2003-09-08 at 15:25, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Richard Huxton wrote: > > > What happens with an application built on top of MySQL+PHP I couldn't say. I'm > > > guessing your PHP scripts can be distributed under any licence you like, but > > > you couldn't distribute MySQL+PHP with them. > > > > > > Anyway, their intention is that you *can't* distribute your application > > > without either GPL-ing it or buying a licence. One of the reasons why a BSD > > > licence is more friendly from a business point of view, although it does mean > > > companies can release proprietry extensions that they keep private. > > > > And contribute them to the community after 1-2 years, which has happened > > often. > > But they don't have to. The Unix Wars were caused by large companies > that took BSD and made proprietary extensions. Thus, there are pit- > falls to both GPL & BSD (not to mention straight-up proprietary > licenses). No question about it, but the Internet's ability to share code has tilted the scales in favor of sharing, I think --- companies get more out of sharing than they do out of being proprietary (after a certain period of time), and that period of time is shrinking. For Red Hat, the time is already zero, and for others it seems to be 1-2 years. -- 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
Kaarel wrote: >>This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL >>support in version 5 back in June. >> > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > without buying MySQL commercial license? This is the very point of a conversation I had with Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden, about the whole license change. I thought there is no way you sell any product, that can connect to any future MySQL server using the version 4 protocol, in binary format without the source code shipped under GPL or ... this is where the conversation faded off somehow ... and I don't know if MySQL expects you or your customer (who would actually run their GPL'd MySQL server, your proprietary application (il)legally connects to ... I have CC'd Marten in this eMail. I am sure he can explain in detail what you are supposed to do from now on if you do not want to GPL your proprietary application written in PHP. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
FYI In answer to Kaarel's question Kaarel wrote: > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > without buying MySQL commercial license? Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this question appears to be of broader interest: Marten G. Mickos wrote: > Kaarel, Jan > > Thanks for your email, Jan! > > Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to > offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing > the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this > principle, and that's why we use the GPL. > > Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is: > > "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." > > 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. > > I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you > have any further questions. > > > Kind regards, > > Marten -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it. I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements of the GPL. In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial license" violates the GPL itself. On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > FYI > > In answer to Kaarel's question > > Kaarel wrote: > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > > without buying MySQL commercial license? > > > Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me > permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this > question appears to be of broader interest: > > Marten G. Mickos wrote: > > Kaarel, Jan > > > > Thanks for your email, Jan! > > > > Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to > > offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing > > the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this > > principle, and that's why we use the GPL. > > > > Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is: > > > > "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." > > > > 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. > > > > I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you > > have any further questions. > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > Marten > > > >
right, but thats not what he said.
> > >"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."
note the "if distributed", its key to the whole thing. if your just
distributing php code then all is well and good, but if your
distributing php code and mysql, then you gotta pay up.
Robert Treat
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:26, scott.marlowe wrote:
> I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The
> GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it.
>
> I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install
> their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I
> can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements
> of the GPL.
>
> In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add
> requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's
> not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial
> license" violates the GPL itself.
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > FYI
> >
> > In answer to Kaarel's question
> >
> > Kaarel wrote:
> > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would
> > > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and
> > > without buying MySQL commercial license?
> >
> >
> > Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me
> > permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this
> > question appears to be of broader interest:
> >
> > Marten G. Mickos wrote:
> > > Kaarel, Jan
> > >
> > > Thanks for your email, Jan!
> > >
> > > Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to
> > > offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing
> > > the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this
> > > principle, and that's why we use the GPL.
> > >
> > > Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is:
> > >
> > > "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."
> > >
> > > 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.
> > >
> > > I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you
> > > have any further questions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Marten
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Well,
I think it's a gift horse, this mysql thing. Postgres will certainly
benefit.
The mysql people should make a two level product, featurewise and
all, if the want to maintain their userbase. The lower level doesn't
need the fancy license and fees, the upper one does. An example of this
is various permutations and enhancements to the Zend PHP engine.
Robert Treat wrote:
>right, but thats not what he said.
>
>
>
>>>>"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."
>>>>
>>>>
>
>note the "if distributed", its key to the whole thing. if your just
>distributing php code then all is well and good, but if your
>distributing php code and mysql, then you gotta pay up.
>
>Robert Treat
>
>On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:26, scott.marlowe wrote:
>
>
>>I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The
>>GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it.
>>
>>I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install
>>their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I
>>can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements
>>of the GPL.
>>
>>In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add
>>requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's
>>not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial
>>license" violates the GPL itself.
>>
>>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>FYI
>>>
>>>In answer to Kaarel's question
>>>
>>>Kaarel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would
>>>>one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and
>>>>without buying MySQL commercial license?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me
>>>permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this
>>>question appears to be of broader interest:
>>>
>>>Marten G. Mickos wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Kaarel, Jan
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for your email, Jan!
>>>>
>>>>Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to
>>>>offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing
>>>>the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this
>>>>principle, and that's why we use the GPL.
>>>>
>>>>Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is:
>>>>
>>>>"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."
>>>>
>>>>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.
>>>>
>>>>I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you
>>>>have any further questions.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Kind regards,
>>>>
>>>>Marten
>>>>
>>>>
>
>
>
Robert Treat wrote: > right, but thats not what he said. > > >>>>"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." > > > note the "if distributed", its key to the whole thing. if your just > distributing php code then all is well and good, but if your > distributing php code and mysql, then you gotta pay up. I wanted to "chime in" on this topic. Some of this doesn't make any sense, at least to me. Is there only one way to inteface PHP to MySQL that is the equivalent to "static linking"? Say you had a closed PHP application, and it used ODBC (of some sort) to communicate to MySQL - as long as the ODBC layer was closed or LGPL'd or something, how are you linked to MySQL? Unless the only way to communicate to MySQL from PHP is via some kind of API in PHP, all of which is GPL'd - gah, it is boggling my mind, but if this was the case, then MySQL would be a bad choice for a DB (whether your app is open source or not). I would think though, that if there is no "static linking" involved (that is, you are communicating through ODBC or some other itermediary API that is closed or LGPL'd for your app), that you should be able to distribute your closed source application, as well as MySQL (and make available its accompanying source code, or distribute it with it), and be OK by the GPL. However, I am not a lawyer here - if this is truely an issue, perhaps the parties that need this resolved should speak with one competent in these kinds of issues. Andrew Ayers Phoenix, Arizona > Robert Treat > > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 11:26, scott.marlowe wrote: > >>I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The >>GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it. >> >>I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install >>their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I >>can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements >>of the GPL. >> >>In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add >>requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's >>not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial >>license" violates the GPL itself. >> >>On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: >> >> >>>FYI >>> >>>In answer to Kaarel's question >>> >>>Kaarel wrote: >>> >>>>Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would >>>>one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and >>>>without buying MySQL commercial license? >>> >>> >>>Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me >>>permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this >>>question appears to be of broader interest: >>> >>>Marten G. Mickos wrote: >>> >>>>Kaarel, Jan >>>> >>>>Thanks for your email, Jan! >>>> >>>>Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to >>>>offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing >>>>the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this >>>>principle, and that's why we use the GPL. >>>> >>>>Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is: >>>> >>>>"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." >>>> >>>>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. >>>> >>>>I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you >>>>have any further questions. >>>> >>>> >>>>Kind regards, >>>> >>>>Marten > > -- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE -- This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain informationthat is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the intendedaddressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use, copy,disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received thismessage in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email, and delete the message. Thank you.
On Tuesday 23 September 2003 12:11, Dennis Gearon wrote:
> Well,
> I think it's a gift horse, this mysql thing. Postgres will certainly
> benefit.
>
well, even if PostgreSQL benefits, I don't think mysql loses much. The people
most likely to leave them are folks building commercial apps who are
unwilling to pay thier reletivly small commercial fee. This isn't thier
target market for either the commercial or libre versions of mysql, and
actually those are the types of people most GPL advocates are primarily
working against.
> The mysql people should make a two level product, featurewise and
> all, if the want to maintain their userbase. The lower level doesn't
> need the fancy license and fees, the upper one does. An example of this
> is various permutations and enhancements to the Zend PHP engine.
>
i could go either way here, but I think MySQL and MaxSQL (sapdb-max or
whatever it is) might just fill that role.
Robert Treat
> Robert Treat wrote:
> >right, but thats not what he said.
> >
> >>>>"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."
> >
> >note the "if distributed", its key to the whole thing. if your just
> >distributing php code then all is well and good, but if your
> >distributing php code and mysql, then you gotta pay up.
> >
> >Robert Treat
> >
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Marten G Mickos wrote: > Scott et co., > > Thanks for your comment. Here is my response. > > First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of > us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally, > affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF > is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we > turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic > does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic! > > Robert Treat already pointed out two main points: > - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE > - the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the > ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without > giving anything back to the community This is generally true, but it also created an issue where PHP, an open source project, can no longer distribute PHP with mysql connect libraries freely due to what I like to think of as an "impedence mismatch" of their licenses. I.e. more free licenses like BSD or PHP are not always compatible. In other words, I can create an open source application based on PHP, MySQL and my own code, and theoretically can't put it all together on the same disk pre-linked and ready to go, because I can't legally distribute PHP pre-compiled to handle MySQL without violation one or the other's license. The way I've read it on the PHP lists is that now RedHat would be in violation of the PHP license if they were to ship two essentially free packages that were precompiled and linked against each other. So, PHP users suffer in that instance, not just the folks looking for a "free ride". I read over the licensing page on mysql.com and it does appear a lot of the questions I had have been cleared up. Keep in mind one of my issues before was that the license page basically said that if I was selling commercial closed source software, I had to have a commercial license, ignoring such issues as ODBC / JDBC connectivity via a non-encumbered license et. al. So what had bothered me was the appearance that MySQL AB were further restricting my rights to distribute under the GPL. All that has been pretty much cleaned up now.
Oops! scott.marlowe@ihs.com ("scott.marlowe") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Marten G Mickos wrote:
>> Scott et co.,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
>>
>> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
>> us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
>> affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF
>> is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we
>> turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic
>> does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic!
>>
>> Robert Treat already pointed out two main points:
>> - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE
>> - the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the
>> ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without
>> giving anything back to the community
>
> This is generally true, but it also created an issue where PHP, an open
> source project, can no longer distribute PHP with mysql connect libraries
> freely due to what I like to think of as an "impedence mismatch" of their
> licenses. I.e. more free licenses like BSD or PHP are not always
> compatible.
It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
ironic?
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "ntlug.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/lisp.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #20. "Despite its proven stress-relieving
effect, I will not indulge in maniacal laughter. When so occupied,
it's too easy to miss unexpected developments that a more attentive
individual could adjust to accordingly."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
After a long battle with technology,scott.marlowe@ihs.com ("scott.marlowe"), an earthling, wrote:
> I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL.
> The GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not
> bound by it.
If all the other "open source" software had the same kinds of
boundaries, then in order to use Linux + GCC + GLIBC + Apache + Emacs
+ Perl + Some Other Things for "commercial purposes," you'd be
required to pay out $4K in license fees, per host.
And people would naturally see this as disgraceful, not free, and not
bother using the software. If "Linux distributions" were licensed the
way MySQL is, we'd doubtless all drop Linux like a hot potatoe (my
little homage to the political processes of the week around North
America :-)) and adopt *BSD en masse.
The subtle "dig:"
"Linus Torvalds doesn't expect you to pay him $450 per machine if
you run proprietary software on Linux, does he?"
--
(reverse (concatenate 'string "gro.mca" "@" "enworbbc"))
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/sgml.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #76. "If the hero runs up to my roof, I
will not run up after him and struggle with him in an attempt to push
him over the edge. I will also not engage him at the edge of a
cliff. (In the middle of a rope-bridge over a river of molten lava is
not even worth considering.)" <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Scott et co., Thanks for your comment. Here is my response. First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally, affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic! Robert Treat already pointed out two main points: - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE - the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving anything back to the community When it comes to the issue of linking or not, and the type of linking, please have a look at the GPL FAQ on the GNU.org site. Here is an important passage from it, showing that it is not only the technicalities of the linking, but also the semantics of it. In other words, the intent is as important as the method (just like in many other issues defined by law - your intent in doing something may determine whether it was a crime or not). http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html - - - What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged). - - - Kind regards, Marten > I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The > GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it. > > I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install > their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I > can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements > of the GPL. > > In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add > requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's > not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial > license" violates the GPL itself. > > On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > FYI > > > > In answer to Kaarel's question > > > > Kaarel wrote: > > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would > > > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and > > > without buying MySQL commercial license? > > > > > > Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me > > permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this > > question appears to be of broader interest: > > > > Marten G. Mickos wrote: > > > Kaarel, Jan > > > > > > Thanks for your email, Jan! > > > > > > Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to > > > offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing > > > the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this > > > principle, and that's why we use the GPL. > > > > > > Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is: > > > > > > "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." > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you > > > have any further questions. > > > > > > > > > Kind regards, > > > > > > Marten > > > > > > > > > > - - - Marten Mickos MySQL AB tel (EUR) +358 40 500 1153 tel (USA) +1 650 283 5311
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Oops! scott.marlowe@ihs.com ("scott.marlowe") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> > On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Marten G Mickos wrote:
> >> Scott et co.,
> >>
> >> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
> >>
> >> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
> >> us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
> >> affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF
> >> is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we
> >> turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic
> >> does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic!
> >>
> >> Robert Treat already pointed out two main points:
> >> - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE
> >> - the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the
> >> ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without
> >> giving anything back to the community
> >
> > This is generally true, but it also created an issue where PHP, an open
> > source project, can no longer distribute PHP with mysql connect libraries
> > freely due to what I like to think of as an "impedence mismatch" of their
> > licenses. I.e. more free licenses like BSD or PHP are not always
> > compatible.
>
> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
>
> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
> ironic?
except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the
non-commercial license.
but if m$ decided to make mysql an integral part of their OS they would
have to pay up.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote: > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote: >> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software >> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves. >> >> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be >> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be >> ironic? > > except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the > non-commercial license. except that MySQL uses dual-licensing. The commercial license for MySQL (the one you need to distribute your proprietary code) is _not_ GPL. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 13:50, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
> >> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
> >>
> >> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
> >> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
> >> ironic?
> >
> > except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the
> > non-commercial license.
>
> except that MySQL uses dual-licensing. The commercial license for MySQL
> (the one you need to distribute your proprietary code) is _not_ GPL.
>
and? sure, if mysql released a version of its database that somehow was
so tightly integrated into the kernel that the two had to be shipped
together, a dual license from linus would force them to pay money if
they didn't want to gpl their product. but rather than this being some
way of "sticking it to them", i'd bet they'd be happy that they actually
have they option to keep their product closed and would happily fork
over the money.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Christopher Browne wrote:
> > This is generally true, but it also created an issue where PHP, an open
> > source project, can no longer distribute PHP with mysql connect libraries
> > freely due to what I like to think of as an "impedence mismatch" of their
> > licenses. I.e. more free licenses like BSD or PHP are not always
> > compatible.
>
> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
>
> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
> ironic?
Actually, GPLed software is already restricting you like MySQL ("release
anything based on this as GPL as well"), _except_ MySQL is allowing a
non-GPL version to exist, so in a way, MySQL gives more options than
normal GPL software --- sad but true.
--
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
Marten G Mickos wrote: > Scott et co., > > Thanks for your comment. Here is my response. > > First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of > us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally, > affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF > is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we > turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic > does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic! > > Robert Treat already pointed out two main points: > - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE > - the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the > ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without > giving anything back to the community > > > When it comes to the issue of linking or not, and the type of > linking, please have a look at the GPL FAQ on the GNU.org site. Here > is an important passage from it, showing that it is not only the > technicalities of the linking, but also the semantics of it. In other > words, the intent is as important as the method (just like in many > other issues defined by law - your intent in doing something may > determine whether it was a crime or not). > > > http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html > > - - - > What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a > legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that > a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication > (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, > etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of > information are interchanged). > - - - Yes, this is the crux of it. PHP is an interpreted language, so does PHP code designed to work with MySQL require a commerical license. The MySQL URL is unclear: http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html a) If you include the MySQL server in your non Open Source application, you need a commercial licence for the MySQL server What does "include" mean? Does it mean having MySQL on the same CDROM? It then goes on to mention MySQL drivers, and that makese sense, but again, that assumes dynamic linking spreads the GPL, which is unclear. What happens if I ship Linux on a CDROM with my close-source application on the CDROM too? Seems similar. The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible. This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new term). No wonder many companies say "no GPL software". For all those fuzzy cases, the cute line, "To all commercial organisations we do recommend the commercial licence." meaning "We recommend you pay us money." -- 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
Marten G Mickos wrote:
> Scott et co.,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
>
> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
> us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
> affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF
> is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we
> turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic
> does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic!
>
> Robert Treat already pointed out two main points:
> - the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE
What does "internally" distribute mean?
As long as you never distribute (internally or externally) the
MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it
from:
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html
I don't see "internally" mentioned in the GPL. Again, I think it is an
attempt to extend the GPL as far as possible, and license FUD.
--
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
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
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:pgman@candle.pha.pa.us]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: Jan Wieck
> Cc: Kaarel; Christopher Browne; pgsql-general@postgresql.org;
> Marten G Mickos
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software
>
>
> 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.
This is what I find odd about GPL software:
{an illustration}
A man named George opens a spoon factory. People flock to his shop to
make spoons with no charge for their labor. You see, it is a company in
combat with the mighty "Oneida" which makes lots of spoons and people
could sure use some cheap, reliable spoons. If anyone uses these
spoons, then the knife, fork, plate and glass also now belong to George.
Strangely, George charges as much for these spoons (manufactured at no
cost to him) as Oneida.
Make the relevant substitutions in the above illustration with your
favorite GPL/Commercial enterprise.
Choose: Redhat Linux/Windows
Choose: MySQL/Oracle
Or any other such face-off.
Dann Corbit wrote:
> This is what I find odd about GPL software:
> {an illustration}
> A man named George opens a spoon factory. People flock to his shop to
> make spoons with no charge for their labor. You see, it is a company in
> combat with the mighty "Oneida" which makes lots of spoons and people
> could sure use some cheap, reliable spoons. If anyone uses these
> spoons, then the knife, fork, plate and glass also now belong to George.
> Strangely, George charges as much for these spoons (manufactured at no
> cost to him) as Oneida.
Your illustration is interesting, but it doesn't tell the whole story. A
better illustration would be:
A man named George opens a spoon factory. People flock to his shop to
make spoons, but they are not paid for their labor, nor do they expect
to be paid.
George's company is in competition with the mighty "Oneida", which makes
lots of spoons, but they cost a bit of money to buy. People sure would
like to have cheap, reliable spoons, so George's company provides just
that. In fact, the spoons are so cheap, George *gives* them away, along
with the plans for making the spoons.
How can George do this? Well, George tells everyone who takes a spoon
(as a form of license):
"You can take a spoon, and you can make new spoons from my plans, as
well as improve upon my spoons. But if you sell them or give them away,
you must tell those you sell or give them to what I have told you, and
also give them the plans so they may make spoons as well."
Now, you may chuckle and think that George will go out of business - now
everyone knows his secret to making spoons - why buy or take from George
when you can just make spoons for yourself? But you agreed to a license
with George. Now what?
Well, you can make spoons all day long, for yourself - even for your
immediate family. But if you give (or sell) them to anybody else - you
*must* tell them what George told you, and give them the plans for
making spoons.
Spoons may be made all day long, and improvements to those spoons as
well. George, in fact, thinks "Hey, some of those improvements will come
back my way - they have to, eventually - and I can improve upon my own
spoons, and then give or sell those as well! Better spoons for everyone!".
One day, George hears of an improvement made to his spoon, and is given
a copy (along with the revised plans) - this spoon has little "prongs"
on the end (and strangely enough, is called a "Fork"). George likes this
new "spoon" so much - he wants to sell it, and keep the secret to
himself. But he can't, at least not with the plans he has, because he
would have to abide by the same license he himself set out. So George
decides to do something different, and figure out a different way to
make these new spoons without using any of the changes detailed in the
plans he recieved with the new spoon.
George isn't as successful - but he does come up with a much more useful
(?) variant of spoon and fork - he calls it a "Spork", because it seems
to combine the best attributes of both. While he started with his
original spoon design, since he is the owner of that design he can
license/contract it in any manner he wants - and this time he decides
that he wants to sell this new spoon, and not tell anyone how it is made.
Now, the original spoon didn't cost George anything to make - but he had
to pay someone (even if it was just himself) to come up with the idea of
a Spork, so he is justified in selling it for whatever people will pay -
even though people may still get spoons from him and others, and there
are also these mysterious "forks" floating around. Some may choose to
buy sporks - others can get spoons and forks (for free, though some
makers provide a 1-900 number "service" to learn how to properly use them).
---
I think even my analogy has flaws, but it is much closer to the truth
about the GPL...
Andrew Ayers
Phoenix, Arizona
-- CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE --
This message is intended for the sole use of the individual and entity to whom it is addressed, and may contain
informationthat is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. If you are not the
intendedaddressee, nor authorized to receive for the intended addressee, you are hereby notified that you may not use,
copy,disclose or distribute to anyone the message or any information contained in the message. If you have received
thismessage in error, please immediately advise the sender by reply email, and delete the message. Thank you.
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action > (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible. > This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new > term). First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is an error. As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The FSF is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code. Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might. License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself. Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise. If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.
> -----Original Message----- > From: Doug Quale [mailto:quale1@charter.net] > Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:13 PM > To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software > > > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL > reach as far as > > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable > definition. In > > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal > > action (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as > > possible. This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds > > like a new term). > > First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is > an error. You mean that they have different desires for the scope of the GPL license scheme? Which one has taken a more relaxed posture? > As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything > about MySQL's dual licensing scheme or about MySQL's > interpretation of the GPL. The FSF is not the copyright > holder of the MySQL source code. Which brings up an interesting question. How has the FSF become the legal copyright holder to ANYTHING? After all, the FSF is not the original author of any of it. Who was it that decided the FSF was to suddenly become the owner of this stuff? What legal weight did that decision have? > Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There > are many large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who > need have no legal fear of the FSF. By what data do you make this statement that MS and IBM have no fear of the FSF? Are you saying that there is no fear of the FSF products as far as competition? Are you saying that there is no fear of FSF contamination of MS or IBM proprietary software? I believe that there is plenty of fear. If there isn't, there ought to be. > There are better > possible explanations why no one has challenged the GPL in > court than the absurd notion that everyone is terrified by > the FSF's irresistible legal might. Straw man. Nobody said that everyone was terrified or that FSF has irresistable might. However, *some* people/companies surely are frightened. The might of the FSF would be the might of the licenses they hold. Right now, that is an unknown quantity. The very untested nature of the licenses makes them more dangerous because there have been no clarifying precedents at all, I would think (though I am not a lawyer). > License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had > questions about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will > continue to have questions. Copyrights and licenses are a > complex subject and most of us are programmers, not lawyers. > If you want to know how the FSF interprets the GPL in a > specific circumstance, ask them. Will their response have the weight of law? > If the FSF interpretation > of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find or > purchase code under a different license or write it yourself. > > Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the > copyright holder of GPL software? When did someone say that? Or even hint at it? > This is a morally bankrupt > enterprise. If someone had proposed it. > If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc. Personally, I think a number of GPL products are really swell. Those include [for instance] Linux and GCC. If someone were installing an application or database server that required hundreds or thousands of users, I would certainly recommend Linux over Windows 2003. I don't think that supposing other license formats (like BSD or ACE) are superior means that someone would not be able to use something with a policy that is [considered] inferior or more restrictive. Unpaid GPL programmers are exploited by the corporations that sell their tools for profit. But I suppose they can be expoited if they choose to be.
Doug Quale wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as > > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In > > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action > > (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible. > > This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new > > term). Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search and didn't see your name. > First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is an error. > As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual > licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The FSF > is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code. I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_ because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together. > Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many > large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no > legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no If they don't use GPL code, you mean? > one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that > everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might. If the FSF is anything like GNU/Richard Stallman, I am sure there is lot of pressure placed on folks --- I have heard stories, but of course, I have no first-hand evidence. Stallman will not even do an interview if you call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux --- that's sounds like extortion right there. > License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions > about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have > questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of > us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF Well, I have never heard someone complain about the BSD license being confusing, at least since they removed the "advertising" clause, and the BSD folks don't want it to be confusing, nor try to extend the license to other pieces of software relying on it, nor to be vague so the BSD license can extend to other pieces of software in a non-predictable way. > interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF > interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find > or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself. My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the FSF (and MySQL) like it that way. > Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright > holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise. I don't have a problem with honoring the license intent of the GPL software --- it is my code that they reach into and say I have to GPL that bothers me. Let's face it, most people choose a GPL license because they think it _is_ the open-source license, not because they understand it --- if they did, I am sure many would not choose it. > If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc. If there something else better, I sure would. But gcc doesn't pollute my work, I don't care too much. The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where appropriate, so we don't bully people. I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in public --- again, just a guess. -- 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
"Dann Corbit" <DCorbit@connx.com> writes: > Which brings up an interesting question. How has the FSF become the > legal copyright holder to ANYTHING? After all, the FSF is not the > original author of any of it. Who was it that decided the FSF was to > suddenly become the owner of this stuff? What legal weight did that > decision have? 1. RMS wrote a lot of gcc and GNU Emacs, among others, and also of course founded the FSF. 2. For software to be considered a part of the GNU project, the original author (and any major contributors) must assign copyright to the FSF, which gives it legal status to defend the GPL for that software. Many authors have done this. The FSF is very careful about getting the legal paperwork before allowing someone to contribute to GNU code (this is one reason development went so slowly on some of the packages for a long time). 3. There are major projects like the Linux kernel that are GPL but not GNU. No one entity holds copyright on Linux; though Linus probably has the strongest claim, anyone who has contributed significant amounts of code has standing to sue license violators (AFAIK, but IANAL). -Doug
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Doug Quale wrote: > > Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you > have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a > GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search > and didn't see your name. Perhaps this then isn't an appropriate place for the discussion? Once the discussion's here it doesn't seem reasonable to say it's only ok to have it here for some people but not others. I suggest moving it elsewhere. > I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are > trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as > possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_ > because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together. The FSF and Stallman is very clear about where it stops. The confusion only comes in because not everyone agrees with them. So you hear a million and one variations. The FSF's position is that the technical details of the interface between modules is irrelevant. The way to judge whether a module is derivative of another is by asking whether it has any purpose without the presence of the other. Eg, it doesn't matter whether you write a static library, a shared library (like gimp plugins), or a separate executable that interfaces via the command-line (like the cc1 executable that's part of gcc). You don't just have to rely on the FSF's lawyers either. The few times they've actually pushed the issue other company's lawyers (eg NeXT's in the case of the Objective-C compiler for gcc -- a separate executable that interfaced via the command-line) agreed with the FSF's interpretation. The reality is that the courts do not go in for technical details. They care more about real-world consequences. Telling a court that static libraries are derivative but shared libraries which are exactly the same work but compiled differently aren't, I'm told, wouldn't go over well in a court. [It occurs to me that now there's a million-and-one variations. Perhaps you shouldn't trust my explanation and go to the source instead.] > My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because > it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the > FSF (and MySQL) like it that way. That's pure FUD. The FSF and Stallman have written numerous explanations, and it's really not all that complex an argument. You may not agree with it, not everyone does, but that shouldn't stop you from understanding it. > The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be > open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where > appropriate, so we don't bully people. The FSF makes no secret of this goal. In fact it's in the GNU Manifesto and in various essays written by Stallman. If people use the GPL without either reading the GPL or any of the essays explaining its purpose then, well, sure, people do dumb things sometimes. I think you're wrong to assign any beliefs to the BSD license. Lots of people use the BSD license with different intents. Some because they're less cynical than the FSF about the success of free software, others because they just don't care about the political aspects beyond their release. > I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you > something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't > really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in > public --- again, just a guess. Perhaps airing public criticisms -- especially ones that seem to amount to ``I don't know much about the GPL and it's the FSF's fault'' -- isn't a good idea if you don't want to see people step up and defend the thing you're criticising. -- greg
Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>> [ lots of stuff about the GPL ]
Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.
regards, tom lane
Bruce Momjian wrote: > 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. Moreover, the term "another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved" reduces effectively to nothing. Imagine we would change some small details in PostgreSQL like storing the system catalog in a MySQL database. We continue to ship PostgreSQL under BSD, but it now requires MySQL. As long as you use PostgreSQL in a GPL conformant context, that's probably fine, but effectively all the freedom of our BSD license is gone because you can't do anything else with it any more. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:
> Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> writes:
> > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> >> [ lots of stuff about the GPL ]
>
> Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
> not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
> either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.
>
> regards, tom lane
<IANAL>
I subscribe to this. The point here is a comparison between licences,
whatever they are. Any discussion involving FSF is off-topic, since
AFAIK people at FSF have no rights over either MySQL or PostgreSQL code.
What _they_ think about what the wording of GPL means is totally
irrelevant, because they released no MySQL or PostgreSQL code, ever.
The only things that matter here are:
1) BSD licence of PostgreSQL, and _only_ in the way PostgreSQL authors
interpret it. After all, the wording of it is just an expression
of the authors' intent.
2) the licence of MySQL, and again, _only_ in the way they take it.
The comparison may be interesting, and definitely on topic.
The key point being:
when I (the author) release the software "X" under licence "L",
people having doubts about the meaning of "L" should ask me, and
I'll make clear what my intent is. Asking the authors of another
software, even they happened to use the same wording of "L" for
their licence, is useless. What they mean with "L" for their sw
is irrelevant.
I think MySQL people made their intent clear. We may discuss
whether their licence is a "real GPL" or not, and FSF people may
argue they shouldn't claim their sw is GPLed, but this discussion
does not belong here, but on GPL and MySQL lists.
Someone may think that MySQL licence (call it GPL or not, it's still
MySQL licence) is too restrictive for him, and turn to look at
PostgreSQL and wonder what the advantages of PostgreSQL licence are
(again, call it BSD or not, it's still PostgreSQL licence). _That_
would be an interesting discussion.
</IANAL>
.TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Colombo@ESI.it
Martha Stewart called it a Good Thing whenDCorbit@connx.com ("Dann Corbit")wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Doug Quale [mailto:quale1@charter.net]
>> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:13 PM
>> To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
>> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software
>>
>>
>> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
>>
>> > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL
>> reach as far as
>> > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable
>> definition. In
>> > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal
>> > action (legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as
>> > possible. This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds
>> > like a new term).
>>
>> First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is
>> an error.
> You mean that they have different desires for the scope of the GPL
> license scheme? Which one has taken a more relaxed posture?
They have _considerably_ different ethical frameworks surrounding
their purposes and actions. And yes, they _obviously_ have different
desires surrounding the use of the GPL.
The FSF created it to maintain what they regard as "freedom" of
software. (The fact that your definitions may differ does not change
their intent, nor does it change what is *right* about their intent.)
In contrast, MySQL AB quite clearly uses the GPL to allow those that
are "impoverished/cheap" to not need to pay license fees for their
_commercial_ products, so long as they play by certain rules.
>> As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual
>> licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The
>> FSF is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code.
> Which brings up an interesting question. How has the FSF become the
> legal copyright holder to ANYTHING? After all, the FSF is not the
> original author of any of it. Who was it that decided the FSF was
> to suddenly become the owner of this stuff? What legal weight did
> that decision have?
The FSF holds copyright because those projects run under the auspices
of the FSF require that contributors assign copyright to the FSF.
Notable such projects include GCC, GNU Emacs, GLIBC, the various "GNU
tools" sets (binary tools, text tools, and such).
The FSF has been really quite careful about this, as this is the way
that they establish legal right to be the legal 'protectors' of those
bodies of code. Development of GCC largely "stalled" for a while
because they were pretty zealous to make sure the paperwork was in
place whilst would-be contributors thought this was all pointless.
(In much the same way that people visit PostgreSQL once in a while and
think that the license should "of course" be changed to the GPL.)
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','acm.org').
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/unix.html
JOHN CAGE (strapped to table): Do you really expect me to conduct this
antiquated tonal system?
LEONARD BERNSTEIN: No, Mr. Cage, I expect you to die!
[With apologies to music and James Bond fans the world over...]
JanWieck@Yahoo.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
>>> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
>>> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
>>> That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
>>> required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
>>> ironic?
>> except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the
>> non-commercial license.
>
> except that MySQL uses dual-licensing. The commercial license for
> MySQL (the one you need to distribute your proprietary code) is
> _not_ GPL.
And apparently people aren't getting my point.
I'm not even talking about the GPL, per se; I'm pointing at the
"ethical framework" in use. Look back at Marten's comment that Jan
posted:
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.
In contrast with that, the assorted people involved in bringing us
such systems as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Perl, GCC,
and many other such systems do NOT expect that sort of "quid pro quo."
The various "free Unix" systems appeared because a whole lot of people
were interested in having something freely available. The variations
in licenses don't change that, whatever the back and forth blustering
may be between those that want to despise others over their licenses.
He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable:
"The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones
who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving
anything back to the community."
That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly
peculiar understanding of the word "community." (Presumably one where
the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and
employees of MySQL AB.")
In contrast, it generally seems to be regarded for typical "open
source" projects that having additional parties exploiting the systems
is, by and large, a good thing, and that benefits are likely to accrue
even in the absence of "commercial licenses."
But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar
burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB
are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source
projects don't see things that way.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")
On Thursday 25 September 2003 04:08, Christopher Browne wrote: [snip] > He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable: > > "The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones > who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving > anything back to the community." That's the one that got my attention too. I must admit that although I've never spent a penny on PG or related merchandise I do believe I've contributed in my own small way. I must have answered over 1000 queries in the last couple of years, hopefully helping several hundred people. My PostgreSQL Notes were getting over a thousand hits a week at their peak - presumably they were of benefit to _someone_. > That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly > peculiar understanding of the word "community." (Presumably one where > the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and > employees of MySQL AB.") Well, to be charitable if you view the key point of open source as being, well, the source code they have a point. BSD code can end up pretty much anywhere without any repercussions. If they had kept the GPL on the database but stuck to the LGPL on the client libraries no-one would bat an eyelid. It's the fact that merely _using_ MySQL now makes you conform to the GPL that raises any questions. [snip] > > But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar > burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB > are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source > projects don't see things that way. My take on this is it's all about ownership. With MySQL and Qt there are the owners and the users, and not a lot of overlap. With PG, it's all a lot more fuzzy. The SAP-DB mailing-list archives are a good illustration of the difference - when the "transfer" to MySQL happened there were a lot of people who suddenly realised exactly where they stood. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd
>Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is >not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in >either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please. > > Ahmen! > regards, tom lane > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo@postgresql.org > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-222-2783 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com The most reliable support for the most reliable Open Source database.