Quoting Andy Sy ([EMAIL PROTECTED]): > Yes, of course, should have been more explicit there. I meant > to say you need a commercial license if you write an app that > _links_ with MySQL and don't want to release your sources.
No, that is still not right. First of all, you mean proprietary licence, not "commercial". However a much more significant point is that there is no obligation to release source unless one has distributed binaries. > As far as I can tell, MPL-style copyleft licenses are less strict > on which parts of your source code you have to release. The copyleft provision applies on individual code modules, as I said before, as opposed to the codebase as a whole. > GPL requires you to release full sources to anything that even uses a > teeny bit of code from a GPL'ed module (such as readline). No. Let's go over this again: First of all, it's not a matter of "use", but rather of linking. Usage that doesn't involve linking has no copyleft implications. E.g., codebases communicating via xmlrpc or CGI are not examples of linking. Second and more important, the obligation is triggered only if one has _distributed_ binaries. Usage that doesn't involve distribution, e.g., running a database on a server inside one's enterprise, that is nonetheless _used_ by remote users, doesn't have any copyleft implications. -- Cheers, Microsoft Corporation Gandhi-o-meter, revision 2001-05-03 beta01. Rick Moen "They ignore you." "They laugh at you." "They fight you." "You win." [EMAIL PROTECTED] WE ARE HERE.>> ^^^^^^^^^^ _ Philippine Linux Users Group. Web site and archives at http://plug.linux.org.ph To leave: send "unsubscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Fully Searchable Archives With Friendly Web Interface at http://marc.free.net.ph To subscribe to the Linux Newbies' List: send "subscribe" in the body to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
