On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:04:46 -0700 "Roy T. Fielding" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> According to > > http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html > > 1. You obey the GPL in all respects for the Program and the > Derivative Work, except for identifiable sections of the > Derivative Work which are not derived from the Program, and > which can reasonably be considered independent and separate > works in themselves, > > Is apr_dbd_mysql an independent work or a Derived Work in relation > to mysql? I am pretty certain RMS would say it is a Derived Work. > I don't know what MySQL thinks, but their copyright may not apply > if all you are doing is using the published client API. Looking at the GPL, I can't see a basis for considering it a derived work. The strongest argument for it can be taken from a paragraph of the LGPL's introductory waffle, where it speaks of the distinction between the GPL and LGPL: "The reason we have a separate public license for some libraries is that they blur the distinction we usually make between modifying or adding to a program and simply using it. Linking a program with a library, without changing the library, is in some sense simply using the library, and is analogous to running a utility program or application program. However, in a textual and legal sense, the linked executable is a combined work, a derivative of the original library, and the ordinary General Public License treats it as such." That only refers to "the linked executable", which is not something we're contemplating distributing. APR/APU work just fine, and even provide the full apr_dbd API, without any requirement to link MySQL. So any third-party user of APR should presumably be in the clear too, unless *they* make something into a MySQL derived work. We can include apr_dbd_oracle without our users requiring an Oracle license. It's hard to justify MySQL being more restrictive. > In other words, if it is an independent work (in the eyes of MySQL) > then we can distribute it under the Apache License and, assuming > we don't link in MySQL by default for binaries, there is no viral > effect. However, if it is considered to be a Derived Work, then the > MySQL exception is only saying that we can distribute both of them > together if and only if the GPL is applied to apr_dbd_mysql > (regardless of your decision as copyright owner). The exception > therefore only protects the rest of APR from the viral clause, > and we still can't redistribute it in our package MySQL's view from their FOSS exception page: "Derivative Work means a derivative work under copyright law." It's hard to see how that would apply to a work that merely uses their published API. And in my view, their Appendix A clinches it: they're happy for APR to be distributed, including MySQL support, under ASL 2.0. > My opinion is that apr_dbd_mysql is an independent work that merely > uses the published MySQL interfaces, and therefore okay for us to > include in the distribution. That would be confirmed if MySQL said > it was okay to license apr_dbd_mysql as under AL2. If all they said > was that APR could include apr_dbd_mysql under the exception, then > that doesn't say much of anything. Indeed. -- Nick Kew Application Development with Apache - the Apache Modules Book http://www.apachetutor.org/
