I can only caution you again ... it doesn't matter what the MySQL folks (or anyone else) says the license means. The only thing that matters is what a court would decide if the matter came up. In turn, that means you need to consult with *your* company's legal folks to advise what *their* recommendations are with respect to the use of the code under a particular license.
After all, if it ever came to a dispute, *you* would be the one getting sued, not MySQL. Craig (who works for a company that has required review policies before *any* open source software can be used) On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > After doing a little research on this I still wasn't getting a clear > picture, so I wrote to someone at MySQL AB (I found an e-mail address > for someone who seemed to welcome questions on the Web). I presented > what I thought were some typical scenarios of MySQL use (such as JDBC > applications and desktop apps that used an embedded database) and asked > him to please identify what the developer's obligations or > responsibilities would be in each scenario with regard to licensing. I > also told him I would like to share his answers with people on this list > if he didn't mind. So far (after two days) I haven't received a response. > > The one paragraph I have found that sticks out to me is this one > (http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html): > > "Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you > never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it > for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application > is under GPL license or not." > > I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case) > are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for > their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just > merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture > (or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends > on what they mean by "distribute"; On another note, what if you had a > proprietary "system" that used a central MySQL server, but was meant to > be set up on many small networks?). To me that paragraph means you can > build a proprietary application that "uses MySQL as the database" > without having to buy a commercial license from MySQL. > > You might say "that's obvious", but it seems to me like MySQL has been > moving toward a more restrictive model lately . . . > > Someone please correct me if you understand their policy differently. > > Erik > > > Dave Newton wrote: > > > Fogleson, Allen wrote: > > > >> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If > >> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and > >> can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in > >> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those > >> sections when you distribute them as separate works." > >> > >> > > From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem > > > > "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software > > alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make > > sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length, > > that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a > > single program. > > > > The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered > > software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The > > substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that > > they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat > > them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing. > > > > If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the > > kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two > > separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply > > one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about > > this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the > > free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection." > > > > From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation > > > > " If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are > > definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run > > linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means > > combining them into one program." > > > > Like Craig says, this is an interesting issue with Java (and, I guess, > > shared libraries in general). And it's _still_ never been clear to me > > what, exactly, it means with regards to web applications. > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
