Thread: Response from MySql AB (Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing))

Here's an interesting response from mysql.com sales.  Frankly, I don't see
how using it on multiple internal servers violates the GPL?!?:

<btw, forgive me if this comes through as a repost later.  I'm still
getting used to having multiple email addrs in this client :)>

Hi John,

Thank you for your interest in MySQL.  My answers below.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: mysql@sourceillustrated.com
> [mailto:mysql@sourceillustrated.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 7:50 AM
> To: licensing@mysql.com
> Subject: MySQL Licensing Question, US, -unknown-
>
>
> The following form was submitted via MySQL.com feedback engine:
>
>   Name: John Wells
>
>   Email address: mysql@sourceillustrated.com
>
>   Type of interest: for company use
>
>   Country: US
>
>   Support contract: no
>
>   Enter Your Questions, Comments, Feedback or Your Message here:
>
>     I'm a little confused on the meaning of "distributing either
externally or internally" on the license page.  If we develop an
application that uses MySql as the backend database and
> use in on our
>     internal LAN, do we need to license it commmercially?

Internal distribution applies to internally distributing/installing more
than one application.  If you plan to use one installation of MySQL it
would not be considered distribution and you could use if for free with
your "internally built application."

> How would this
>     be in violation of the GPL?

If your application (internal or external) is licensed under the terms of
the GPL, you are allowed to distribute MySQL, also under the GPL, for
free.

What do you mean, exactly,
> by internal
>     distribution?
>
>     Also, if we write an application that expects MySql (like
> a web app),
>     but we don't package the database with the application
> and tell the
>     customer that they must download and install it, is this
> violation of
>     the GPL?

Again, if your application is licensed under the terms of the GPL you can
use MySQL for free.  If your application is not licensed under the terms
of the GPL, commercial non-GPL licenses are necessary.  You will need to
purchase licenses under this scenario (unless you go GPL), please review
our licensing examples,
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.

How are you planning to use MySQL?

Mr. Matt Fredrickson,
Sales Executive
MySQL, Inc. - www.mysql.com
Office: +1 425 390 0154
Fax: +1 425 663 2001

MySQL Featured in the Wall Street Journal:
http://webreprints.djreprints.com/785490482991.html

>http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.
>
>
Well this is very interesting indeed. Beat that:

"You need a license if you sell a product designed specifically for use
with MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
true whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
product distribution."

So whatever compiled program or script you sell, if it works only with
MySQL (say you want to sell a shell script that checks if a row has been
added to a MySQL table), you need a license. Then a question arises
though, when I make my script to work with MySQL AND PostgreSQL too,
does this make the above statement not valid in my case?

Kaarel

my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
court of law, or how would you enforce it?

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

>
> >http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.
> >
> >
> Well this is very interesting indeed. Beat that:
>
> "You need a license if you sell a product designed specifically for use
> with MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
> true whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
> product distribution."
>
> So whatever compiled program or script you sell, if it works only with
> MySQL (say you want to sell a shell script that checks if a row has been
> added to a MySQL table), you need a license. Then a question arises
> though, when I make my script to work with MySQL AND PostgreSQL too,
> does this make the above statement not valid in my case?
>
> Kaarel
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html
>

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

>
> >http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.
> >
> >
> Well this is very interesting indeed. Beat that:
>
> "You need a license if you sell a product designed specifically for use
> with MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
> true whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
> product distribution."
>
> So whatever compiled program or script you sell, if it works only with
> MySQL (say you want to sell a shell script that checks if a row has been
> added to a MySQL table), you need a license. Then a question arises
> though, when I make my script to work with MySQL AND PostgreSQL too,
> does this make the above statement not valid in my case?

Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you.  While they
can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.

Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
give your customer a copy of MySQL on debian or what not and you will be
in full compliance with the GPL as long as you were smart enough to use a
LGPL or freer ODBC driver within your application, like iodbc
(www.iodbc.org) which is LGPLd.

MySQL is using FUD about the GPL to push commercial licenses.  I
consider this unethical in the extreme.  If I were a MySQL user I would
honestly consider spending some time to create my own LGPL'd connection
libs for 4.x to be rid of the licensing issues.  If they were a pure GPL
company I would at least have some respect for them using GPL on their
connect libs, i.e. sink or swim on the GPL, but the fact is they are using
the fear and uncertainty about where the GPL applies to their customer's
commercial code to sell licenses.  Their rhetoric on the web site has been
cleaned up and toned down a bit, but it still has a whole "if you're not
sure, better buy a commercial license" feel to it.

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
> connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

A

--
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
> > connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
>
> Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
> risking it.

That's true of just about any software license.

> I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
> claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
> software licenses.

That's true of just about any software license.

Jon

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
> > connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
>
> Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
> risking it.
>
> I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
> claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
> software licenses.

My point is that MySQL is licensed under the GPL, so what MySQL says is
not as important as what the GPL says.  I.e. consult a lawyer if you're
wondering, but don't listen to MySQL AB for your legal advice.

>Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you.  While they
>can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
>only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.
>
>
Does MySQL AB interpret their license as GPL at all? If they have made
changes to the general GPL license then it's more like MySQL
non-commercial license than GPL.

Kaarel

Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:

> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
>> Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
>> connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
>
> Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
> risking it.
>
> I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
> claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
> software licenses.

This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one.  The
interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they feel
that they can safely defend in a court of law.  However, if there was
a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would suit them
right down to the ground.

Jason

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

>
> >Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you.  While they
> >can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
> >only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.
> >
> >
> Does MySQL AB interpret their license as GPL at all? If they have made
> changes to the general GPL license then it's more like MySQL
> non-commercial license than GPL.

Having had a short dialog with the MySQL folks, they've said, for the most
part: "It's GPL.  If you're not sure, consult the GPL and the FSF."  I.e.
they aren't adding anything to the GPL, but they do try to interpret it in
such a way as to require commercial license purchase wherever possible.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 jearl@bullysports.com wrote:

> Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> >> Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
> >> connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
> >
> > Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
> > risking it.
> >
> > I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
> > claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
> > software licenses.
>
> This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
> Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one.  The
> interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they feel
> that they can safely defend in a court of law.  However, if there was
> a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would suit them
> right down to the ground.

'K, you lost me here ... from what I've seen, MySQL AB's license is "GPL
with exceptions that force you to use our commercial version" ... whereas
my understanding of the GPL itself is that there are no exceptions, period
...

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:

> On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 jearl@bullysports.com wrote:
>
>> Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:
>>
>> > On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
>> >> Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
>> >> connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
>> >
>> > Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
>> > risking it.
>> >
>> > I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
>> > claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
>> > software licenses.
>>
>> This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
>> Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one.  The
>> interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they
>> feel that they can safely defend in a court of law.  However, if
>> there was a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would
>> suit them right down to the ground.
>
> 'K, you lost me here ... from what I've seen, MySQL AB's license is
> "GPL with exceptions that force you to use our commercial version"
> ... whereas my understanding of the GPL itself is that there are no
> exceptions, period ...

I can see why I lost you.  I left out the most important bit.  MySQL
AB uses the same GPL as the rest of the world.  The difference is that
MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL relies on a very broad
interpretation of "derivative work."  They tell their customers that
if the application requires MySQL that it is a derivative work
regardless of all the esoterica like how the application might be
linked, etc.  From what I understand there are actually some
precedents that could be stretched to support this position.

The definition of a derivative work that the FSF uses is considerably
more narrow, but that's not because they want it to be so.  The FSF is
simply using a definition that it is relatively certain that it can
defend in court.  If MySQL AB were to set a precedent that widens what
constitutes a derivative work then the FSF would be very pleased.

Most developers don't have a clue about the intricacies of Free
Software licenses, and most managers are wary about getting on the
wrong side of the GPL (I would be too if there was a chance of having
to face Eben Moglen in court).  Since the commercial license for MySQL
is not too terribly high, MySQL gets quite a few sales.  Since the
whole kit-and-kaboodle is untested in court you can't even really
accuse MySQL of being devious.  It's even possible that the courts
will uphold their version of what constitutes a derivative work.

Those of us here would rather go with the altogether safer PostgreSQL.
It won't truncate your large integers without warning, it doesn't
consider 0000-00-00 a valid date, and it's license is unambiguous.

I hope that is a little clearer.

Jason

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

>my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
>court of law, or how would you enforce it?
>
>
I think this is not the issue for most business owners. If something
even smells like it might end up in a court of law, they're not going to
touch it with the proverbial 10-foot pole. Especially something as
interchangeable as inexpensive database software. Regardess of how
outlandish MySQL's interpretation of the GPL might be, any sane
businessperson would try to conform to their intent (by paying
reasonable commercial licensing or just avoiding it altogether) rather
than try to aruge it in court.

- Marsh

El Jue 09 Oct 2003 13:05, Andrew Sullivan escribió:
> On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:
> > Fact:  If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
> > connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
>
> Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
> risking it.
>
> I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
> claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
> software licenses.

How about making a consult to the lawer that writes in "Linux Journal",
Lawrence Rosen. I'm not sure if he still writes for LJ, but he can be caught
at www.lawrencerosen.com (well, the site says it's under construction).

By the way, the legal problemas are even more difficult then anyone can
imagine. They change from country to country.

--
 08:32:01 up 7 days, 18:09,  2 users,  load average: 0.04, 0.23, 0.37
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués                  |        mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA |       Centro de Telematica
                       Universidad Nacional
                            del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------

scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") writes:
> my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in
> a court of law, or how would you enforce it?

If you get a threatening letter in the mail with all sorts of legal
verbiage such that you have to pay for a lawyer to interpret it,
that's going to cause a bunch of Loss of Sleep, Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt.

And consider: with the separation of duties, what is likely to happen
in many places is that the letter is likely to go to the corporate
Legal Department who will get all flustered and paranoid, and call
managers, who will also get all flustered and paranoid.

Paying "commercial licensing fees" will do a nice job of unflustering
them, albeit at the cost of demonstrating that it isn't "free
software" in any conceivable sense of the term...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "libertyrms.info")
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)

[sNip]
> my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
> court of law, or how would you enforce it?

        The problem is finding a volunteer who's willing to test this.  =D

--
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
http://www.8x.ca/

This message originated from within a secure, reliable,
high-performance network ... a Novell NetWare network.