About GPL and proprietary software

Kaarel <kaarel@future.ee> writes:

[...]

If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
proprietary company?

This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer.

-Doug

Cross-posted to pgsql-advocacy in response to Doug's
comment that:

This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer.

Responses to pgsql-advocacy... I hate cross-posting, too.

The information is pertinent to postgreSQL because our
BSD license is a "selling point" for us. We need to know the differences
between BSD and other licensing schemes.

--elein

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:

I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases
legal?
1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves
it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps
the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee.
2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary
software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server.
3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD
which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code).

If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
proprietary company?

Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a
PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list????

Be that as it may:
IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.
(2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has
broken the GPL.
(3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network
link, etc., does not break the GPL.

Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is
to avoid issues like this.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

4 degrees from Vladimir Putin

Kaarel writes:

I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases
legal?

That depends on whether the MySQL client library is LGPL (up to version 3)
or GPL (from version 4 on). But a PostgreSQL forum is probably an
entirely inappropriate place to discuss this.

--
Peter Eisentraut peter_e@gmx.net

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.

Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.

But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it
gets even more complicated.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

After a long battle with technology,ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson), an earthling, wrote:

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:

I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases
legal?
1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves
it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps
the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee.
2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary
software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server.
3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD
which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code).

If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
proprietary company?

Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a
PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list????

Be that as it may:
IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.
(2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has
broken the GPL.
(3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network
link, etc., does not break the GPL.

Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is
to avoid issues like this.

While your understanding is common, it does not appear to conform with
the understanding that MySQL AB has of how the GPL applies to their
product. They appear to think that software that "speaks to" their
database, _by whatever means_, needs to be licensed under the GPL.

When some SAP-DB users proposed writing their own "database drivers"
that talk to SAP-DB (which is being renamed "MaxDB", marketed by MySQL
AB) using network links, and licensing it under the LGPL, so that they
would not be forced to license their own software under the GPL, they
were warned that lawyers might be sent after them for doing this.

All in all, MySQL AB seems pretty jealous about guarding their
proprietary code...

And yes, that's all talking about "someone else's product." But if
someone comes visiting to figure out whether PostgreSQL might be more
suitable for their purposes, they may have to talk about the "less
suitable" software in order for everyone to see where it fits in. It
might be that PostgreSQL would NOT be more suitable, but it can take
some discussion to figure it all out.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne&gt; rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/
LOGO is not a language. It's a way to simulate 'skid marks' made by
turtles with serious bowel control problems.

The world rejoiced as meskes@postgresql.org (Michael Meskes) wrote:

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.

Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.

But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it
gets even more complicated.

No, actually, it's pretty simple.

There is (as likely as not) NO issue with the server.

The issue is that the CLIENT software is unavailable in other than GPL
and other "private license-for-money" forms.

In order for you to use MySQL, you have to link GPLed libraries in
with your code. There are no LGPLed libraries; that would break MySQL
AB's business model.

There is considerable unhappiness surrounding this vis-a-vis SAP-DB;
SAP AG had had the server software GPL-licensed, and the client
software licensed under LGPL. Along with renaming it "MaxDB," MySQL
AB is apparently eliminating LGPL-licensed libraries, which is causing
some consternation in the user community. Which will probably point
some system integrators over to use either Firebird or PostgreSQL...
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/wp.html
"My soul is more than matched; she's overmanned; and by a madman!
Insufferable sting, that sanity should ground arms on such a field!
But he drilled deep down, and blasted all my reason out of me! I think
I see his impious end; but feel that I must help him to it. Will I,
nill I, the ineffable thing has tied me to him; tows me with a cable I
have no knife to cut. Horrible old man!
[...] Oh, life! 'tis now that I do feel the latent horror in thee!"
--Moby Dick, Ch 38

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote:

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.

Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.

Well, there's this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
and this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html

Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives
an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok
w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

"Millions of Chinese speak Chinese, and it's not hereditary..."
Dr. Dean Edell

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:59, Christopher Browne wrote:

After a long battle with technology,ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson), an earthling, wrote:

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 07:26, Kaarel wrote:

I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases
legal?
1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves
it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps
the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee.
2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary
software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server.
3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD
which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code).

If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
proprietary company?

Why are you asking about MySQL (a GPL-licensed product), on a
PostgreSQL (a BSD-licensed product) mailing list????

Be that as it may:
IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.
(2) proprietary s/w that *statically* links to "GPL" libraries has
broken the GPL.
(3) proprietary s/w that "speaks" to "GPL" s/w via a pipe, network
link, etc., does not break the GPL.

Presumably, one of the reasons that PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed is
to avoid issues like this.

While your understanding is common, it does not appear to conform with
the understanding that MySQL AB has of how the GPL applies to their
product. They appear to think that software that "speaks to" their
database, _by whatever means_, needs to be licensed under the GPL.

That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that
doesn't sound right.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Johnson, Jr. ron.l.johnson@cox.net
Jefferson, LA USA

"Man, I'm pretty. Hoo Hah!"
Johnny Bravo

Ron Johnson wrote:

On Sun, 2003-08-31 at 14:57, Michael Meskes wrote:

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 02:26:14PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote:

IANAL, but according to my understanding
(1) proprietary s/w that dynamically links to "GPL" shared libraries
has not broken the GPL.

Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.

Well, there's this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
and this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html

Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives
an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok
w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area.

Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread
the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that.

We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt
libedit someday for that very reason.

I researched this a little recently for Joe Conway.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

ron.l.johnson@cox.net (Ron Johnson) wrote:

That "_by whatever means_" seems to include "network link", and that
doesn't sound right.

Ah, but in order to use it over the network link you need to be
running their server software, on the one side, and their client
access software, on the other. Both sides are linked to GPL-licensed
software.

Your client software has to link in software belonging to MySQL AB,
and that's where they are now "biting" people on this.

This is one of the reasons why the PHP people removed bundled MySQL
support in version 5 back in June.
--
let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/rdbms.html
"It is not enough to succeed, others must fail." -- Gore Vidal

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 07:37:47PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Ron Johnson wrote:

Well, there's this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL
and this:
http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingOverControlledInterface
http://lists.gnupg.org/pipermail/gnupg-devel/2000-April/010043.html

Linus thinks that dynamic linking is ok, RMS doesn't, but gives
an example boilerplate that says how dynamic linking can be ok
w/ the GPL. It's definitely a grey area.

Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread
the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that.

We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt
libedit someday for that very reason.

I was under the impression that the GPL only covers distribution, not use
(as seems normal for copyright). In other words, as long as you don't ship
readline with PostgreSQL you're fine. If the user wants to install it on
their machine with readline linked in that's their problem entirely.

Now, I think that people have tried to argue that if a library is the *only*
implementation of the interface then it should be considered linked in
because otherwise you're just using dynamic linking to get around the GPL.

But since PostgreSQL doesn't depend on readline (it is optional after all) I
don't see the issue. However, for the MySQL client library since the
software strictly depends on that library, the fact that it's distributed as
a seperate tarball does not absolve you of the GPL requirement.

Obviously MySQL wouldn't have done their licence this way if they didn't
think it was enforcable. Maybe they have themselves an exception or
variation on the GPL? But it's still confusing.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:

Right, dynamic linking is a case where RMS would like the GPL to spread
the the closed-source binary, but I don't think he can legally do that.

We do have that issue with our linking in of libreadline. We may adopt
libedit someday for that very reason.

I was under the impression that the GPL only covers distribution, not use
(as seems normal for copyright). In other words, as long as you don't ship
readline with PostgreSQL you're fine. If the user wants to install it on
their machine with readline linked in that's their problem entirely.

Now, I think that people have tried to argue that if a library is the *only*
implementation of the interface then it should be considered linked in
because otherwise you're just using dynamic linking to get around the GPL.

But since PostgreSQL doesn't depend on readline (it is optional after all) I
don't see the issue. However, for the MySQL client library since the
software strictly depends on that library, the fact that it's distributed as
a separate tarball does not absolve you of the GPL requirement.

Obviously MySQL wouldn't have done their license this way if they didn't
think it was enforceable. Maybe they have themselves an exception or
variation on the GPL? But it's still confusing.

The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the
closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot
of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough.

Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):

What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
modules into one program"?

Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on
the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they
are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if
one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other
program.

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the
whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or
won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a
legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec,
pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the
semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are
interchanged).

You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
dynamic linking restriction enforceable.

A more exotic issue is: what if you create a libreadline library that
has the same linking signature as GNU readline, but it does nothing.
Can you then say the binary doesn't _require_ GNU readline? As you can
see, saying something _requires_ something else to run is a very hard
argument to make, and even if the argument can be made, saying that the
function calls themselves force the GPL is a great reach, I think.

It isn't even clear that the GPL is enforceable in saying you can't
modify the source code and ship a closed source version. But if it is,
reaching from there to say you can't dynamically call a GPL library is
really strange. How is that different from calling the Linux kernel,
which is GPL? In fact, most system calls are accessed through a libc
function call. Of course, GNU libc is LGPL, but it makes calls to a GPL
kernel. Does the LGPL kernel remove the GPL dynamic linking restriction
to the kernel? I don't think so. In fact, I don't think a line can
clearly be drawn, and hence the unenforceable of a the dynamic linking
GPL restriction.

On a (very) side note, there are some things that you grow to like more
and more over time (hopefully PostgreSQL), while there are others you
grow to like less and less over time (GPL, RMS). The RMS case is
particularly poignant because new folks to open source really seem to
like him, but the longer they are involved in open source, the less they
seem to like him. I have seen this regularly in my travels. In fact,
when someone wrote a biography of RMS, the author was most surprised
that he could find so few of his acquaintances who would talk about him.

Another big part of the success of PostgreSQL is that people seem to
like us more and more over time, while proprietary vendors seem to
generate the opposite effect. :-)

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Sun, Aug 31, 2003 at 04:14:30PM -0400, Christopher Browne wrote:

Sure? My understanding is that it does break GPL. That's why there's an
LGPL.

But since MySQL is double licensed and GPl is just one of the two it
gets even more complicated.

No, actually, it's pretty simple.
...
The issue is that the CLIENT software is unavailable in other than GPL
and other "private license-for-money" forms.

In order for you to use MySQL, you have to link GPLed libraries in
with your code. There are no LGPLed libraries; that would break MySQL
AB's business model.

Well, isn't that what I said? Okay, granted, you put it into words much
better, but it looks like I wanted to say the same.

MySQL has to GPL the libs to make sure they can make money with there
other license. What I meant to say with LGPL is that this license is for
such a usage, not that MySQl has LGPLed stuff.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes
Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De
ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: meskes@jabber.org
Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL!

This is neither a GNU nor a MySQL mailing list. I suggest you take
your question to one of those places, as you'll get a better answer.

The question in it self was more general than PostgreSQL and MySQL.
However as I currently need to work with both of them I wanted to make
clear the actual differences caused by licensing between the two
products. The other thing is that it is probably a little easier to
explain and understand if there are concrete examples.

I asked this list because I didn't want to subscribe to yet another list
for this matter and pgsql-general sure has the competence to answere
that kind of questions. It has to have.

I asked this list and not MySQL list because I am subscribed to
mysql-general and comparing the two list content I like more what I see
in PostgreSQL lists and the concrete example is about PostgreSQL as much
as it is MySQL. I don't think at a PostgreSQ conference you would guide
me to MySQL conference when I asked this same question would you?

Licensing is quite difficult to understad (at least for me) yet a very
important aspect of software development. I don't intend to ruine
anybodys day I just want a small discussion which in the end would
explain the cases when the licensing aspect of these two concrete
products will play an important role in developing software.

Kaarel

On 01/09/2003 10:07 Kaarel wrote:

[snip] Licensing is quite difficult to understad (at least for me) yet a
very important aspect of software development. I don't intend to ruine
anybodys day I just want a small discussion which in the end would
explain the cases when the licensing aspect of these two concrete
products will play an important role in developing software.

With the withdrawal of LGPL from MySQL 4.x, you might find yourself either
having to GPL your application or buy a commercial license if your
application has their client libraries compiled in. About 18 months ago,
when I started designing the ERP product I'm currently working on, I
rejected MySQL on purely technical grounds (and that was compared to
PostgreSQL 7.1!). So far, that seems a very good decision. My application
is basically designed to use PostgreSQL (although if someone offered me
enough money, I expect I could port it Oracle or DB/2) and it's BSD-style
license avoids the possibilty of me or my clients having to pay a $400
licence fee to use a "free" program.

-- 
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller 
Business |
| Computer Consultants         | 
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

The FSF would _like_ dynamic linking to pass the GPL to the
closed-source binary, but that doesn't make it so --- I would like a lot
of things but wanting it to happen isn't enough.

Their FAQ says (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html):

What is the difference between "mere aggregation" and "combining two
modules into one program"?

Mere aggregation of two programs means putting them side by side on
the same CD-ROM or hard disk. We use this term in the case where they
are separate programs, not parts of a single program. In this case, if
one of the programs is covered by the GPL, it has no effect on the other
program.

Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they
form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the
whole combination must also be released under the GPL--if you can't, or
won't, do that, you may not combine them.

What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a
legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec,
pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the
semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are
interchanged).

You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
dynamic linking restriction enforceable.

Name calling ("control freak") is childish.

If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a
GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a
gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF
General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia).

Combined works dynamically linked to GPL libraries involve untested
legal issues. The legal issues are complex, and when law and
technology collide it can be hard to predict the outcome. RMS
believes the GPL is enforcable in this case, but until someone is
willing to be sued by the FSF over this no one will know for sure.
(None of the GPL violators the FSF has pursued have been willing to
risk a trial so far.)

Doug Quale wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

You can bet that RMS, control freak that he is, wouldn't have put that
disclaimer in there if he felt he had much chance of making the GPL
dynamic linking restriction enforceable.

Name calling ("control freak") is childish.

Eh? Bruce is "childish" for opining that RMS is a "control freak"?
What is the proper terminology for those that call people who think
RMS is a control freak ("childish")?

If you are not a lawyer and you want to bet that dynamic linking to a
GPL'ed library doesn't invoke the GPL then I think you're taking a
gamble. Clearly you think you know more about the law than the FSF
General Counsel Eben Moglen (professor of law at Columbia).

A bit hypersensitive, aren't we?

Mike Mascari

I think the main issue in dynamic linking is whether or not you used the
GPL headers. If you did, then you are in fact combining your work with a
GPL work. If you did not, then how is one to know _which_ library you are
linking against. It could be the GPL library, but it could also be any
other library which exports the same symbols. If I link to Motif, I am
not obliging myself to the GPL just because Lesstif exists.

Jon

On 1 Sep 2003, Doug Quale wrote: