The Problem here is that mysql does not intepret GPL in the same way that the rest of the world does.
I wrote to them asking for a client license and they insist i need to buy the server license and with it comes the client license. Do i need to buy a road so that i can drive a car?
Oded Arbel wrote:
???? ????? 21 ????? 2004, 16:18
all is the safest way. If the GPL avoiding solution is technical superior
to the previous one (e.g. wider choice of DBMS), then this is even better.
Sorry to barge in, but I think you all miss the point. IANAL, but I've done some extendsive research into this and similar problems and currently my official standing (and you can quote me, but again - I'm not legally qualified to make such assertions so it's still your risk) regarding GPL is that it allows you to combine GPL code with any open source code using a "GPL compatible" license. that means as long as the Kannel license it GPL compliant it should be ok to link it directly against GPL code.
GPL compatibility is cleary described in the GPL itself as any terms that do not limit the freedom of the user any more GPL does. it is widely accepted that a BSD Style and Apache Style licenses are less limiting then the GPL and are hence GPL compatible.
Also - as long as Kannel does not distribute mysql sources, and it can be compiled against 3.x versions of MySQL as well as 4.x, and is compatible with 3.x libraries (are those LGPL ?) then Kannel people should not worry too much about it as the burden of license compatability lies with the person who distributes binary packages and MySQL explicitly allows you to use it in proprietry commercial environments under the GPL license as long as it is not re-ditributed or advertised.
-- Raditha Dissanayake. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ http://www.radinks.com/sftp/ | http://www.raditha.com/megaupload Lean and mean Secure FTP applet with | Mega Upload - PHP file uploader Graphical User Inteface. Just 150 KB | with progress bar.
