Are you sure that GPL is viral though? There seem to be differing interpretations on the matter. Which is a problem in itself that different people interpret GPL differently.
The Free Software Foundation, who owns the copyright on the GPL license itself, interprets it in a viral fashion. Namely, simply linking to a GPLed dynamic library makes your work a "derivative work" which must be under GPL. A debate won't protect you if you're sued by MySQL.
I really have a hard time understanding the popularity of MySQL when something as good as PostgreSQL is out there and is truly free/open source.
Seriously I have no idea why legal documents tend to be so impossible to understand. Surely a legal document should be clearer than the average piece of writing the average joe might put out, not less clear? I had to make my own custom licence, which fits in half a page of writing, so that ordinary folk can understand it :) Perhaps legal documents are simply so long and stupid so that the lawyers can keep themselves perpetually in work, if only they can understand it, then it keeps them needed.
It's easy to say this is the fault of lawyers, but I tend to think it can be traced back to human nature. People will see things differently even when they have no vested interest in the debate. Throw in ulterior motives and if everything is not precisely defined, you have a mess.
Ever serve on a jury? Watching lawyers go at it is like watching kids fight over the rules of a game.
Daniel L. Taylor Taylor Design Computer Consulting & Software Development [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.taylor-design.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe or switch delivery mode: <http://www.realsoftware.com/support/listmanager/> Search the archives of this list here: <http://support.realsoftware.com/listarchives/lists.html>
