Randolf Richardson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> I _don't_ think what MySQL AB is doing with it is quite what was >> intended, but the various side-effects that you see are, by and >> large, quite intentional, even the ones that don't play into >> scenarios of Richard Stallman as "Evil Overlord." > > The big question is this: Has the GPL been violated by MySQL?
The MySQL AB interpretation that any use of their software under the GPL inherits to mandating that your software be licensed under the GPL certainly seems controversial. <http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml> In that interview, the indication is that by separating components into "client" and "server" bits, using CORBA, the GPL can be circumvented because the client and server aren't "linked." Which is the opposite of what MySQL AB is telling people. The MySQL AB strategy doesn't seem to involve the "client-vs-server" issue. Arguing that your client must be GPL-licensed because the server is wouldn't fly terribly far. Instead, they only provide _client_ software in GPL-licensed form, as _that_ would "taint" the software you might link to it such that it would have to be GPL-licensed. <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=sapdb-general&m=106045880005921&w=2> What is very interesting is that they oppose attempts to circumvent this by someone prepared to write their own client. (The discussion came up when SAP-DB users were distressed that they would no longer be able to get a LGPL-licensed client library, and were discussing the possibility of writing their own...) "In this case, I would suspect that the intent of your middleware is what would matter most in a court case. If the middleware appears to mostly be in place to circumvent licensing restrictions, then it (I believe) would not circumvent the license. If the middleware is an abstraction layer that simply allows for convenient access to a variety of different data sources, then the license might be circumvented." -- Zak Greant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> What is also very interesting is that many/most of the uses of "client libraries" get embedded into PHP/Perl/Python modules, which leads to a mishmash of licenses that may (as with PHP) make redistribution of the client libraries nonpermissible. Long and short... No, I don't see that the GPL has been "violated." But if the GPL is intended as a 'protector/encourager of free software,' their use of it seems to me to be about as distant from that _intent_ as possible. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/postgresql.html If the FreeBSD team could get away with it, they would probably use warnings like "Contains live plague bacteria. Beware the Rabid Hippopotami. May cause nausea and vomiting." -- Michael Lucas, re: FreeBSD-CURRENT ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster