Quoting Clark C. Evans (c...@clarkevans.com):

> I think MySQL AB's licensing strategy is offered in this
> forum as an overreach.  In  particular, Larry Rosen argues 
> that there is no derived work when an application simply 
> uses MySQL as intended via its public interface, even if 
> the application relys upon specific MySQL functionality.

MySQL AB's sales staff is reputed to have made claims to customers that
were insupportable.  (Whether that thus constitutes a licensing strategy 
I would not know, but I'm generally not quite that cynical.)  That is, 
the sales staff were reputed to have told customers that, if they used
any proprietary software whatsoever in conjunction with MySQL in any
way, then the fact that MySQL's client libraries were under GPLv2 with a
meant that the customer was obliged to purchase a for-money licence to
use MySQL Enterprise instead of using an instance under open source

This was a doubtful argument in several ways at the same time:

1.  MySQL wasn't pure GPLv2 anyway, but GPLv2 with a GPL linking
exception clause of some sort (something like Classpath's; I don't care
enough to look up particulars at the moment).

2.  Even if the linking exception clause weren't present, the implied
notion that _any_ ancillary software is inherently a derivative work of
MySQL RDBMS and its access libraries is laughable.

3.  If the problem is licensing of the access libraries, then there are 
also several other usable access libraries, some under liberal academic 
licences.  (Reportedly, the sales staff carefully failed to mention

Which is mostly just a case in point about why a businessman who talks
directly to salesman and believes what they say without investigation
has a fool for a negotiator.

Rick Moen                          "'Decimate' when referring to killing one 
r...@linuxmafia.com                in ten.  'Octomate' when referring to the 
McQ!  (4x80)                       cephalopod dating site."  -- FakeAPStylebook
License-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to