On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 18:06, Ben Clewett wrote: > This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive > and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. > > Michael T. Babcock wrote: > > Ben Clewett wrote: > > > >> MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore > >> breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, > >> the only big GPL user who thinks this way. > > > > No they're not. The issue is not the use of the server (as previously > > discussed a few weeks back), but the library. If you use the older > > library version (which is LGPL'd), you can basically do as you please as > > you believe you should be able to. As the new library is under the GPL, > > you can't legally link it to a non-GPL-compatible program at all > > (without purchasing a different license). > > What you say is that the API is in my application. The API is part of > MySQL. Therefore my application is GPL or needs a licence. > > Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my > application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my > application without licence? (If I so choose.) > > > You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's > > Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify > > and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- > > you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or > > even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that > > is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? > > This may be true. I am a programmer, not a solicitor. It does seem to > fly in the face of Ritchard Stallman's origional idea and intent of the > GPL. So your software may be folked, but then not used as it then > violates some other law. If that's the case, so be it. I better > copyright all my GPL projects ASAP...
Richard Stallmen thinks the MySQL dual licensing model is ok. He does not love it since he think all software should be free. I do meet him pretty often (I was for example at FSF meeting in Boston last Saturday). What goes against his views is proprietary software like the one you are writing. So he would prefer us to only do GPL software and force YOU to be GPL to. But we prefer to make you pay for not having to be GPL. And yes we are DEFINITELY not the only ones having this view of the GPL. Check the GPL FAQ at gnu.org. I do apologize for our sales people being rude. They should not be rude even when you project is to small for their attention. > > Many people here are perfectly happy with the GPL, I might add. I > > license all my MySQL-related code under the GPL. I don't distribute it > > to anyone, so its not terribly relevant, but its well marked and noted > > as being either GPL'd or for personal use only (most of which is GPL'd > > as well). > > > > I don't write much commercial, non-GPL code. I write a lot of > > commercial and GPL'd code though, and so do many other people (like > > MySQL AB). You might want to consider it too. > > I wish I had that sort of job.... I would prefer this option. > Unfortunatelly I am a dying breed of employed programmer selling > commercial applications. Maybe my own applications will be replaced > with a GPL ones. I might even wright them my self. Until then, saving > money on erronious licence fees payes for my family to eat. Where, if I > may, I would love to leave this.... How come our licensing is erronous when your charging fro your software is not? There are a lot of MySQL programmers who are paid with these licensing fees that also have family's who has to eat! /David (MySQL Co-Founder) --------------------------------------------------------------------- Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To unsubscribe, e-mail <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
