On Fri, 2009-07-17 at 20:25 -0500, Sami M. Kallio wrote:
> If I distribute an application that uses an
> abstract data layer and I provide the interface implementation for the
> plugin with say PostgreSQL plugin, but I do not distribute plugins for GPL
> licensed databases, there are no license issues. If someone else (a customer
> maybe) creates a plugin that interfaces to MySQL, that should not be license
> issue for the original program. Could it be licensed under GPL by the
> developer or would it be a violation against MySQL's license?
I'm not sure what "it" refers to in your last sentence. Does "it" refer
to the MySQL-interfacing plugin that someone else wrote? Or to your
app? Either way, I don't think the original app should need to be GPL
licensed.
Plus, it's more "interesting" in .NET. It isn't "I provide an abstract
data layer and then provided an implementation."
Instead, it's:
1. .NET *itself* specifies the relevant interfaces.
2. DbLinq uses *only* the .NET interfaces and types.
2. MySQL *themselves* implemented the .NET interfaces. (As do
PostgreSQL, Oracle, etc., etc.)
So it's not a matter of "I defined an abstract data layer, and someone
else decided to write a wrapper between that layer and GPL'd code," it's
"I wrote to an existing standardized interface, and the GPL developers
themselves wrote an implementation of that standardized interface."
I still don't think this changes anything wrt DbLinq. Claiming that
DbLinq MUST be GPL because it MIGHT load a GPL'd library is crazy.
- Jon
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"DbLinq" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
