On Tue 2003-02-18 at 16:11:11 +0000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Benjamin Pflugmann wrote: [...] > There is also some middle ground here. Which is the overlap of the two.
No. Either the way you distribute your software is GPL-compliant or not. If it is not, you need a commercial license, if it is, you are fine. Forking the source requires it to be still under the GPL, so the license requirements have not changed. > MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore > breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. Okay, you can argue, if MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL is correct, but this changes nothing. Even if you fork, they will still own the copyright on a major part of the code and can still sue you, if they like (I do not mean to imply that they would be fast to sue). > They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. I note > for example the number of companies selling commercial CGI software > designed to run on Apache, Wrong example. Apache is not licensed under GPL (it's "Apache License"). > to which no licence is mandatory. Also Sendmail, Neither is sendmail.(it's BSD license). > GCC, Have not seen many packages that add on GCC. And derived output of GCC is explicitly excluded from being GPL. > other DBMS's, Examples? PostgreSQL is not GPL'ed, InterBase neither (I am not sure if that is still current, but last time I looked it was not). > and indeed GNU/Linux it's self. That's a valid reference in that Linus Torvald has indeed said that he does not think kernel modules have to be GPL'ed, but then, Linus is not someone who much cares about such issues. [...] > Therefore, I can see no reason why not somebody could fork MySQL into > FreeSQL. It would take a few hours at SorceForge, a 'sed' of MySQL into > FreeSQL', and a good posting to Slashdot. Keep it 100% GPL without > breaking either the wording or the spirit of the document. Remove all > reference to copyright material belonging to MySQL. It's either GPL or > cpryright, not both. No offense meant, but you seem to have a lack of understanding of how the GPL works. It cannot work without copyright. It is based on it. It sounds as if you base your opinion on hearsay. I suggest to read the GPL FAQ http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html. Or talk to an lawyer if you need. > Then use this without commercial licence... > > BTW, as to another posting. 'Either accept the GPL or purchase a > licence'. I do note another option (apart from forking): Use something > else. Is MySQL really that good? I do worry that with arrogant > statements like this, this is exactly what people will do, in droves. What's the problem? Do use whatever fits best with your need. The point of the statement is that there is no "right" to have MySQL without cost. You can have it with without cost, if you abide by the GPL. Or else you can buy it. Or you can use something else. Freedom of choice. Although that may sound arrogant, it is not meant this way. It is meant as being realitistic: The people who put a lot of hard work into making MySQL have chosen the GPL. So you should respect that. One could also see it the other way: it sounds kind of arrogant of people trying to tell MySQL AB how they have to license their software. You are free to choose the product of your choice. MySQL AB is free to choose the license(s) of their choice. Bye, Benjamin. -- [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
