Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.
Ahmen!
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)-
Doug Quale wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as
> > possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In
> > fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action
> > (leg
> -Original Message-
> From: Doug Quale [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 5:13 PM
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software
>
>
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as
> possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In
> fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action
> (legal extortion) to further the r
Dann Corbit wrote:
> This is what I find odd about GPL software:
> {an illustration}
> A man named George opens a spoon factory. People flock to his shop to
> make spoons with no charge for their labor. You see, it is a company in
> combat with the mighty "Oneida" which makes lots of spoons and p
> -Original Message-
> From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 24, 2003 1:43 PM
> To: Jan Wieck
> Cc: Kaarel; Christopher Browne; [EMAIL PROTECTED];
> Marten G Mickos
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] About GPL and proprietary software
&g
Jan Wieck wrote:
> > "Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed, will either have
> > to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved open source
> > licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL."
In this case, it is almost saying that if the application requires
MySQL
Marten G Mickos wrote:
> Scott et co.,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
>
> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
> us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
> affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The F
Marten G Mickos wrote:
> Scott et co.,
>
> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
>
> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
> us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
> affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The F
Christopher Browne wrote:
> > This is generally true, but it also created an issue where PHP, an open
> > source project, can no longer distribute PHP with mysql connect libraries
> > freely due to what I like to think of as an "impedence mismatch" of their
> > licenses. I.e. more free licenses
On Wed, 2003-09-24 at 13:50, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>
> Robert Treat wrote:
> > On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
> >> It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
> >> such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
> >>
> >> That way, for MySQL to b
Robert Treat wrote:
On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:
It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
required to pay $450/box to Linus
After a long battle with technology,[EMAIL PROTECTED] ("scott.marlowe"), an earthling,
wrote:
> I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL.
> The GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not
> bound by it.
If all the other "open source" software had the same
Scott et co.,
Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF
is a natural authority on the GPL
Oops! [EMAIL PROTECTED] ("scott.marlowe") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> On Tue, 23 Sep 2003, Marten G Mickos wrote:
>> Scott et co.,
>>
>> Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
>>
>> First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
>> us) is an official authori
FYI
In answer to Kaarel's question
Kaarel wrote:
Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would
one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and
without buying MySQL commercial license?
Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave
Kaarel wrote:
This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL
support in version 5 back in June.
Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would
one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and
without buying MySQL commercial lice
On Monday 08 September 2003 19:30, Kaarel wrote:
>> Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB,
>> and that's where they are now "biting" people on this.
>>
>> This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL
>> support in version 5 back in June.
>
>
> W
That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that
doesn't sound right.
Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be
running their server software, on the one side, and their client
access software, on the other. Both sides are linked to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Johnson) wrote:
> That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that
> doesn't sound right.
Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be
running their server software, on the one side, and their client
access software, on the other. Both
Doug Quale wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
>>You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
>>disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
>>dynamic linking restriction enforceable.
>
> Name calling ("control freak") is childish.
Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the
> closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot
> of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough.
>
> Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):
>
>
This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer.
The question in it self was more general than PostgreSQL and MySQL.
However as I currently need to work with both of them I wanted to make
clear the actual
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:14:30PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:
> > Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
> > LGPL.
> >
> > But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it
> > gets even more complicated.
>
> No, actually, it's pretty simp
Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> > Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread
> > the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that.
> >
> > We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt
> > libedit someday for that very re
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 07:37:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Ron Johnson wrote:
> > Well, there's this:
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
> > and this:
> > http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
> > http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnup
Ron Johnson wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote:
> > On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > > IANAL, but according to my understanding
> > > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
> > > has not broken the GPL.
> >
> > S
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:59, Christopher Browne wrote:
> After a long battle with technology,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Johnson), an earthling,
> wrote:
> > On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:
> >> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
> >> there are some cases I
The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Michael Meskes) wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
>> IANAL, but according to my understanding
>> (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
>> has not broken the GPL.
>
> Sure? My understanding is
After a long battle with technology,[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Ron Johnson), an earthling,
wrote:
> On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:
>> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
>> there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
>> particulary intere
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> > IANAL, but according to my understanding
> > (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
> > has not broken the GPL.
>
> Sure? My understanding is that it
On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:
> IANAL, but according to my understanding
> (1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
> has not broken the GPL.
Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.
But since MySQL is
Kaarel writes:
> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
> there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
> particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
> For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:
> I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
> there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
> particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
> For example say a company has a propriet
Cross-posted to pgsql-advocacy in response to Doug's
comment that:
>This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
>your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer.
Responses to pgsql-advocacy... I hate cross-posting, too.
The information is pertinent to p
Kaarel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
[...]
> If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
> other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
> proprietary company?
This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
your question to one of tho
36 matches
Mail list logo
