On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case) > are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for > their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just > merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture > (or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends > on what they mean by "distribute";
Distribute a software product to a third-party that they can load onto their own hardware. The license is designed to cover circumstances when you are distributing a product to another party or modifying the source. Even the GPL is free for you to use out of the box for your own applications. The strings kick in when you distribute a software product to someone else to use on hardware you don't own, or modify the source -- even for your own use. The "modification" clause is why many businesses do not use GPL software. They can't modify the source, even for internal use, without their own work being encumbered by the GPL. It is sad that there are not more high-power database systems under BSD or Apache-style licenses, since these complications do not apply. If you distribute ASF software to a third party, you must acknowledge our copyright and license, but the software is otherwise free. If you modify the software for your own use, under the Apache License, your work is still your own. If you are distributing a product to others that includes GPL software, and you don't want to put your own work under the GPL, the end-user has to download the GPL package separately (e.g. MySQL) and then plug it in. (And you also have to be careful about how the plugging in process works.) If you distribute the product as a ready-to-go bundle, then the viral aspects of the GPL kick in, and your package must be GPL too. :( -Ted. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
