Hi!
>>>>> "Neil" == Neil Zanella <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Neil> I would like to comment on the following mysql.com question
Neil> "We have made our product available at zero price under the GNU
Neil> General Public Licence (GPL), and we also sell it under a commercial
Neil> licence to those who do not wish to be bound by the terms of the GPL."
Neil> Out of curiosity, how does the second statement
Neil> not violate the GNU GPL? It seems like the GPL
Neil> can be bypassed by keeping two identical copies
Neil> of the source code, one under the GNU GPL bundled
Neil> with the GNU licence file called COPYING, and
Neil> another bundled with a proprietary license file.
Neil> Since the two source files can be considered as
Neil> being updated separately the two licenses can
Neil> be kept alive concurrently. This approach which
Neil> as I see it is perfactly legal (as long as it
Neil> is made clear which is the GPL'd release and
Neil> which is the proprietary release on the download
Neil> section of the mysqld.com web site) can lead
Neil> to forking. In particular, contributions made
Neil> to the GPL'd source code cannot be applied to
Neil> the proprietary source code unless the contributor
Neil> explicitly states that the contribution goes
Neil> to both the GPL'd software release and the
Neil> proprietary source code simultaneously.
<cut>
How we do it here at MySQL (And according to what I know, this is
identically to how FSF does it):
All files in the MySQL distribution that is part of the core MySQL
server clearly states that MySQL AB has the copyright to this file.
Patches that are emailed to us for these files that just cover a few
lines are not considered 'copyrightable work' and can thus be applied
both to the GPL and proprietary version of MySQL.
(See http://www.gnu.org/software/gcc/contribute.html for details about
this)
In other words, we don't have to change the copyright text of the file
just because someone asks us to do a small change to the file.
For larger patches we ask the author for a copyright assignment/shared
copyright before applying the patch (just like FSF does).
Another issue is that most patches, from outside sources, that goes into
the core server are rewritten by me to be more in line with the rest
of the MySQL code.
For source that doesn't affect the core MySQL server (like the InnoDB
or Gemini table handler or patches to the MySQL clients) we don't
require a copyright assignment.
<cut>
Neil> I do not believe that the mysql.org folks have the
Neil> experience to improve on mysql otherwise they would
Neil> have started "theirsql" from scratch. For this very
Neil> reason I would urge mysql.com and mysql.org to come
Neil> to some compromise that would avoid the uglyness of
Neil> what I deem as unnecessary code forking. Let us not
Neil> have two separate code versions of mysql.
Neil> Let us all cooperate.
The main problem with mysql.org is that it clearly violates our
trademark and other rights. If we would accept mysql.org we would put
our trademark on risk and this could seriously affect our future
possibilities to do business.
Another problem with mysql.org is that this is driven by NuSphere, who
don't have any rights to copy, modify or distribute MySQL (because
they have violated the MySQL GPL license). This also makes it hard
for us to work together with them.
We have also tried to talk with NuSphere to solve our issues but so
far in vain. During the two talks we have had with NuSphere after
mysql.org was launched they have just said they are note authorized to
talk about anything that is mentioned in the lawsuits (like the usage
of mysql.org). It's a little hard to sort out things when one of the
parties refuses to talk about the main issues at hand.
Neil> Also, how is mysql.org's funding strategy any better
Neil> than mysql.com? The two parties should perhaps merge.
Neil> Having two mysql's will simply weaken mysql's
Neil> popularity if there is no cooperation among
Neil> the two parties.
I personally don't see any need for a mysql.org; This site doesn't
provide anything important that mysql.com doesn't or couldn't provide.
I you want us to help avoid confusion, I would urge you to help us to
change those few links that are still pointing at mysql.org to point
to mysql.com.
Regards,
Monty
CTO of MySQL AB
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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
