Re: MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
"Måns Rullgård" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Martin Koegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception), older versions were LGPL. At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html MySQL has put a descrption of their network protocol, where they force programs using this protocol to be GPL: The MySQL Protocol is proprietary. The MySQL Protocol is part of the MySQL Database Management System. As such, it falls under the provisions of the GNU Public License (GPL). A copy of the GNU Public License is available on MySQL's web site, and in the product download. Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release your program as GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need clarification of these terms or if you need to ask about alternative arrangements. What are those people smoking? Writing a program that implements a protocol does not in any way I've ever heard of create anything derived from the protocol specification. An MPEG decoder is not a derivative of the MPEG specification (patents issues are unrelated), and this is no different in principle. Remember that it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer a protocol, and then proceed to write your own programs using it. Surely, there can't be more restrictions when the specification is publicly available. Most likey just a scare tactic to prevent commerical products from connecting to MySQL -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
Martin Koegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception), > older versions were LGPL. > > At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html > MySQL has put a descrption of their network protocol, where they > force programs using this protocol to be GPL: > >>The MySQL Protocol is proprietary. >> >>The MySQL Protocol is part of the MySQL Database Management System. >>As such, it falls under the provisions of the GNU Public License (GPL). >>A copy of the GNU Public License is available on MySQL's web site, and >>in the product download. >> >>Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect >>to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose >>between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any >>similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this >>description to write a program, you must release your program as >>GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need clarification of these terms or if >>you need to ask about alternative arrangements. What are those people smoking? Writing a program that implements a protocol does not in any way I've ever heard of create anything derived from the protocol specification. An MPEG decoder is not a derivative of the MPEG specification (patents issues are unrelated), and this is no different in principle. Remember that it is perfectly legal to reverse engineer a protocol, and then proceed to write your own programs using it. Surely, there can't be more restrictions when the specification is publicly available. -- Måns Rullgård [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 08:01:40PM +0200, Martin Koegler wrote: > The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception), > older versions were LGPL. So, if you base your non GPL program on the older version, you are in the clear. Right? :) Justin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
Scripsit Martin Koegler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html > MySQL has put a descrption of their network protocol, where they > force programs using this protocol to be GPL: >>The MySQL Protocol is proprietary. >> >>The MySQL Protocol is part of the MySQL Database Management System. >>As such, it falls under the provisions of the GNU Public License (GPL). I am unaware of any legal theory under which a _protocol_ in itself is subject to copyright. A protocol might conceivably be *patented* in a sufficiently insane jurisdiction, but there is no way that *copyright* can prevent people from implementing the protocol. Hence no copyright license such as the GPL is needed. >>Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to >>a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between >>any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, >>is also bound by the GPL. This does not make any sense. The GPL is a text that describes conditions under which certain software may be _copied_ in original or modified form. It does not speak abot a right to implement a protocol, nor does it purport to grant such a right subject to an conditions. >>Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must >>release your program as GPL. That is at best a horrible misunderstanding, at worst an outright lie. -- Henning Makholm "... not one has been remembered from the time when the author studied freshman physics. Quite the contrary: he merely remembers that such and such is true, and to explain it he invents a demonstration at the moment it is needed." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MySQL only useable for GPL clients?
The newer MySQL client libraries are GPL (with the FLOSS exception), older versions were LGPL. At http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/licensing-notice.html MySQL has put a descrption of their network protocol, where they force programs using this protocol to be GPL: >The MySQL Protocol is proprietary. > >The MySQL Protocol is part of the MySQL Database Management System. >As such, it falls under the provisions of the GNU Public License (GPL). >A copy of the GNU Public License is available on MySQL's web site, and >in the product download. > >Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to >a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between >any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, >is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this description to write a >program, you must release your program as GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need >clarification of these terms or if you need to ask about alternative >arrangements. Does this affect all non GPL MySQL Clients (eg. libmysqlclient10)? mfg Martin Kögler PS: Please CC me on replies. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: migration of wiki material: suggested licence and legal issues
On 10/7/05, Jon Dowland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > A multi-licence wiki would be both detrimental from the perspective of > using it (stuff from one page couldn't necessarily be moved into > another, a dump of all the data would have to be divided up by-licence > before use) but I think also un-manageable in practice. I'm willing to reverse my position on this - it appears that the old content has now been fully migrated and imported, despite requests to not do so until we'd come to a resolution about the licencing :( Now I only see three ways forward: a) no clear licencing/legal situation b) multi-licence site c) undo the importing of old material -- Jon Dowland http://jon.dowland.name/
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Lewis Jardine wrote: Ludovic Rousseau wrote: It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-) I'd expect Mozilla are interested in getting this file BSDed as part of their tri-licensing project, so it might make sense to simply draw Mozilla's attention to this problem and leave approaching RSA to them. There seems to be some confusion about Mozilla's current and future licensing status in this thread. The topic implies Mozilla is under the GPL; this isn't true until the relicensing project is finished. We hope to have that done soon, but it's not done yet. The above comment suggests that we are relicensing to a BSD-like licence; that also isn't true, the target relicensing scheme is an MPL/LGPL/GPL tri-licence. Ludo has drawn my attention to the problem; as I originally read the licence, "this document" referred to the header file, which no-one ever talks about, and so the restriction was in practice meaningless. If that turns out not to be true, we may have more of a problem. The file was originally contributed, with an NPL/GPL dual licence, by Netscape Communications Corp. I would like to think that they would have got clearance to issue the file under that licence before contributing it... Gerv -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SELinux patent time bomb?
Anyway, does http://www.securecomputing.com/pdf/Statement_of_Assurance.pdf solve the concerns? On 10/11/05, Mahesh Pai <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 10/11/05, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > That's not what /usr/share/doc/libselinux/copyright says on my system.
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
Ludovic Rousseau wrote: It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-) I'd expect Mozilla are interested in getting this file BSDed as part of their tri-licensing project, so it might make sense to simply draw Mozilla's attention to this problem and leave approaching RSA to them. I expect Mozilla are already aware of the licensing issues, so any contact need only bring this file to their attention. The first point of contact should probably be the people in charge of Mozilla's relicensing: The bugzilla entry for the relicensing is 236613 [1], in which you can find contact details for Gervase Markham, who is leading the relicensing effort. [1] - https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=236613 -- Lewis Jardine IANAL, IANADD -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SELinux patent time bomb?
On 10/11/05, Steve Langasek wrote: > That's not what /usr/share/doc/libselinux/copyright says on my system. 1. You mean the ``in public domain'' part? 2. Is libselinux the package we are discussing? >From http://www.nsa.gov/selinux/info/contrib.cfm Secure Computing Corporation (SCC) Secure Computing Corporation developed a preliminary security policy configuration for the system that was used as a starting point for NAI Labs' configuration. They also developed several new or modified utilities. I do not have selinux installed, but looks like we need to look into accuracy of libselinux/copyright in more detail. (sorry if formating is bad - I am using the web interface.)
Re: Mozilla can't be GPL? (was: pkcs#11 license)
MJ Ray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I thought the API reference was the PDF from > http://www.rsasecurity.com/rsalabs/pkcs/pkcs-11/ > which has a slightly different licence and wouldn't be copied > wholesale anyway, just the few names for interfacing. I also checked the licence of the PDF file and it _also_ contains a publicity clause. Page 289 I find: " D Intellectual property considerations [...] License to copy this document is granted provided that it is identified as "RSA Security Inc. Public-Key Cryptography Standards (PKCS)" in all material mentioning or referencing this document. " I just noted that the RSA header licence contains: "in all material mentioning or referencing this software." but the PDF licence contains "in all material mentioning or referencing this document.". Note the difference: "cryptoki software" in the header file and "PKCS document" in the PDF. The mozilla licence contains the version with "PKCS document". I don't know where it comes from. I don't think it make it more GPL compatible. > It is interesting. Could one read the API reference documentation > and recreate the header files from the ideas? That would be a real challenge. The API defines A LOT of constants. It seams the only human possible solution is to ask RSA to change their licence. I guess the Mozilla foundation could help if they care about licencing issues. Any idea of how we should contact Mozilla and RSA? I am really _not_ a diplomatic guy :-) Thanks, -- Ludovic Rousseau -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: SELinux patent time bomb?
On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 03:32:57PM +0530, Mahesh Pai wrote: > On 10/11/05, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > See http://lwn.net/Articles/2376/ . > > According to LWN (and other websites which have taken LWN as a > > source), there may be a patent-time bomb affecting SELinux: Secure > > Computing Corporation, who wrote a significant part of SELinux, holds > > patents on it, but doesn't give a clear-cut license, only a > > retractable statement that they don't intend to sue anybody except a > > few usage classes. > But, the patents have been implemented by the patent holder themselves > in software, and the software is released under the GNU GPL? and the > GNU GPL does contain a clause for grant of patent license. So, what is > the problem? That's not what /usr/share/doc/libselinux/copyright says on my system. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: SELinux patent time bomb?
On 10/11/05, Lionel Elie Mamane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > See http://lwn.net/Articles/2376/ . > > According to LWN (and other websites which have taken LWN as a > source), there may be a patent-time bomb affecting SELinux: Secure > Computing Corporation, who wrote a significant part of SELinux, holds > patents on it, but doesn't give a clear-cut license, only a > retractable statement that they don't intend to sue anybody except a > few usage classes. But, the patents have been implemented by the patent holder themselves in software, and the software is released under the GNU GPL? and the GNU GPL does contain a clause for grant of patent license. So, what is the problem?
