Hi Arjen,
(Also posted to Maria-Discuss, so postings to Maria-Developers can be
dropped on follow-up).
On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Arjen Lentz wrote:
Hi Henrik, Kristian,
On 03/09/2009, at 9:05 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kristian
Nielsen<[email protected]> wrote:
Kristian Nielsen <[email protected]> writes:
Davi Arnaut <[email protected]> writes:
I've been monitoring the maria-developers list and there are some
patches that we would like to gradually incorporate into our
branches. For a practical example, i would like to merge into 5.1
parts of this (http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt) patch by Kristian.
Negotiations between Monty Program and Sun have started some time
ago on a
deal which would cover how Sun will get the rights it needs (ie.
SCA) to
include the MariaDB code into the MySQL code, and how Monty
Program will
receive compensation for giving these rights. As I understand it,
these
negotiations are however still in the early phase.
Apparently, this is moving nowhere :-(.
Davi, I'm sorry there has been no progress on this. We discussed
this again in
MariaDB, and would like to get things working better for now.
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit
specific
patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now
so old that
it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a
request for this
or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty
Program have the
ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we
should be
able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician
level.
Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and
we are happy to cooperate.
It's how it works with Drizzle.
However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this
before, it does not make me particularly happy.
Here's the layout:
- the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun.
- BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives.
And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the
dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type
and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by
greedy salespeople.
As far as I know, with the advent of the BSD licensed libdrizzle (https://launchpad.net/libdrizzle
), which also runs with MySQL (and I assume MariaDB), the dual
licensing model is now irrelevant.
My reading of the GPL license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
is that only programs that link GPL components become part of the
greater work.
From the GPL section "1. Source Code.":
"For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files
associated with source files for the work, and the source code for
shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is
specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data
communication or control flow between those subprograms and other
parts of the work."
So linked sub-programs are included. But:
"However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general-
purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used
unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of
the work."
So an unmodified free program like mysqld (the MySQL daemon), are not
part of the work.
This means that a programming linking libdrizzle, and then accessing
mysqld over a communications _channel_ (like TCP, socket, pipe, etc),
does not need to be GPL.
By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is
able to continue that.
Do you want that?
"yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more
important to get the changes upstream.
But I think the question needs to be asked explicitly. Hence.
--
Paul McCullagh
PrimeBase Technologies
www.primebase.org
www.blobstreaming.org
pbxt.blogspot.com
_______________________________________________
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
Post to : [email protected]
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~maria-developers
More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
