On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:03:35PM -0500, Michael D Schleif wrote: > > There are other things to watch out for, but you not modifying the > > source of Debian packages, so it shouldn't matter.
> Basically, since we are _not_ modifying source to any software, I had > always thought that this is a slam-dunk. However, once I read that > MySQL page, I have doubts. Am I misinterpreting it? Redistribution of GPLed software, or of works derived from GPLed software, incurs certain obligations to also distribute the source code to those works. You should consult legal counsel for identifying the exact scope of those obligations for your particular instance. You should also consult legal counsel to determine which original code within your product is a derivative work of the GPLed code you distribute. For Debian's purposes, we conservatively interpret this to at least apply to any application written in C that links against a GPL library. This is not a universally held view, but it is also the FSF's own stated interpretation of the license, and an acceptance of this interpretation of the license is the most probable explanation for MySQL AB's decision to change from LGPL to GPL licensing. As Glenn pointed out, there is an LGPL fork of the MySQL client libraries; available as libmysqlclient10 in Debian, it was forked from the last known version of the MySQL code base that was released under the LGPL, and therefore doesn't provide support for the newest MySQL server protocols. It also may go by the wayside before too long, since the primary motivation for the fork was to support GPL-incompatible Free Software, and MySQL AB has indicated some interest in continuing to support such combinations in their new codebase (excluding only linkage from proprietary applications). Regards, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
