Response from MySql AB (Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing))

http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.

Well this is very interesting indeed. Beat that:

"You need a license if you sell a product designed specifically for use
with MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
true whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
product distribution."

So whatever compiled program or script you sell, if it works only with
MySQL (say you want to sell a shell script that checks if a row has been
added to a MySQL table), you need a license. Then a question arises
though, when I make my script to work with MySQL AND PostgreSQL too,
does this make the above statement not valid in my case?

Kaarel

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html.

Well this is very interesting indeed. Beat that:

"You need a license if you sell a product designed specifically for use
with MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
true whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
product distribution."

So whatever compiled program or script you sell, if it works only with
MySQL (say you want to sell a shell script that checks if a row has been
added to a MySQL table), you need a license. Then a question arises
though, when I make my script to work with MySQL AND PostgreSQL too,
does this make the above statement not valid in my case?

Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you. While they
can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and
give your customer a copy of MySQL on debian or what not and you will be
in full compliance with the GPL as long as you were smart enough to use a
LGPL or freer ODBC driver within your application, like iodbc
(www.iodbc.org) which is LGPLd.

MySQL is using FUD about the GPL to push commercial licenses. I
consider this unethical in the extreme. If I were a MySQL user I would
honestly consider spending some time to create my own LGPL'd connection
libs for 4.x to be rid of the licensing issues. If they were a pure GPL
company I would at least have some respect for them using GPL on their
connect libs, i.e. sink or swim on the GPL, but the fact is they are using
the fear and uncertainty about where the GPL applies to their customer's
commercial code to sell licenses. Their rhetoric on the web site has been
cleaned up and toned down a bit, but it still has a whole "if you're not
sure, better buy a commercial license" feel to it.

my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
court of law, or how would you enforce it?

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") writes:

my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in
a court of law, or how would you enforce it?

If you get a threatening letter in the mail with all sorts of legal
verbiage such that you have to pay for a lawyer to interpret it,
that's going to cause a bunch of Loss of Sleep, Fear, Uncertainty, and
Doubt.

And consider: with the separation of duties, what is likely to happen
in many places is that the letter is likely to go to the corporate
Legal Department who will get all flustered and paranoid, and call
managers, who will also get all flustered and paranoid.

Paying "commercial licensing fees" will do a nice job of unflustering
them, albeit at the cost of demonstrating that it isn't "free
software" in any conceivable sense of the term...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "libertyrms.info")
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/&gt;
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

A

-- 
----
Andrew Sullivan                         204-4141 Yonge Street
Afilias Canada                        Toronto, Ontario Canada
<andrew@libertyrms.info>                              M2P 2A8
                                         +1 416 646 3304 x110

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

My point is that MySQL is licensed under the GPL, so what MySQL says is
not as important as what the GPL says. I.e. consult a lawyer if you're
wondering, but don't listen to MySQL AB for your legal advice.

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

That's true of just about any software license.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

That's true of just about any software license.

Jon

Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you. While they
can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.

Does MySQL AB interpret their license as GPL at all? If they have made
changes to the general GPL license then it's more like MySQL
non-commercial license than GPL.

Kaarel

-----Original Message-----
From: Jonathan Bartlett [mailto:johnnyb@eskimo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 09, 2003 9:20 AM
To: Andrew Sullivan
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Response from MySql AB (Re: [GENERAL] Humor me:
Postgresql vs.

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for
money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're

basically

risking it.

That's true of just about any software license.

Where is the risk with a Berkeley style license?

I think if people want legal advice about the status of

MySQL's claims

about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot

about software

licenses.

That's true of just about any software license.

Is it true of Berkeley style software licenses? Is it true of the ACE
license or the Apache license? Mozilla licenses?

Many open source licenses carry basically no risk at all. Others
contain enormous risk.

DCorbit@connx.com ("Dann Corbit") writes:

That's true of just about any software license.

Where is the risk with a Berkeley style license?

... That AT&T might sue you for infringing on their UNIX code.

That this actually happened (albeit a long, long time ago) proves that
it is a risk that has been "observed in the wild," as opposed to
merely in peoples fevered imaginations.

Supposing the AT&T situation had been resolved more quickly, way back
when, then the population that were looking for a "free Unix" might
well have stampeded to *BSD instead of Linux.

Suppose then, that "FrobozzBSD" turned out to be "The Bees' Knees" in
public interest instead of Linux, and [IBM/SGI] had then dropped out
of Project Monterrey and contributed SMP/FileSystem code to
FrobozzBSD.

The scenario would be much the same as what we have recently seen,
albeit with different licenses involved.

If IBM gave code to FreeBSD that infringed on what SCO perceived as
"their rights," then much the same set of lawsuits would arise, for
much the same reasons.

When AT&T filed suit, it wasn't over which free software licenses were
being used. When SCO filed suit, it wasn't over free software
licenses.

If someone contributed code to PostgreSQL that infringed on some
aspect of the "intellectual property" of
Oracle/Microsoft/Sybase/Whomever, it would be totally irrelevant what
license PostgreSQL uses.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'libertyrms.info';
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/&gt;
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)

Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one. The
interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they feel
that they can safely defend in a court of law. However, if there was
a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would suit them
right down to the ground.

Jason

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003, Kaarel wrote:

Keep in mind, this is MySQL AB interpreting the GPL for you. While they
can say all they want that you have to do this or that, the fact is, the
only document that says what you REALLY have to do is the GPL.

Does MySQL AB interpret their license as GPL at all? If they have made
changes to the general GPL license then it's more like MySQL
non-commercial license than GPL.

Having had a short dialog with the MySQL folks, they've said, for the most
part: "It's GPL. If you're not sure, consult the GPL and the FSF." I.e.
they aren't adding anything to the GPL, but they do try to interpret it in
such a way as to require commercial license purchase wherever possible.

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 jearl@bullysports.com wrote:

Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one. The
interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they feel
that they can safely defend in a court of law. However, if there was
a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would suit them
right down to the ground.

'K, you lost me here ... from what I've seen, MySQL AB's license is "GPL
with exceptions that force you to use our commercial version" ... whereas
my understanding of the GPL itself is that there are no exceptions, period
...

"Marc G. Fournier" <scrappy@postgresql.org> writes:

On Thu, 9 Oct 2003 jearl@bullysports.com wrote:

Andrew Sullivan <andrew@libertyrms.info> writes:

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

This is especially true considering the fact that the Free Software
Foundation would *love* for MySQL AB to be right on this one. The
interpretation of the GPL the FSF forwards is the one that they
feel that they can safely defend in a court of law. However, if
there was a precedent set for MySQL AB's interpretation that would
suit them right down to the ground.

'K, you lost me here ... from what I've seen, MySQL AB's license is
"GPL with exceptions that force you to use our commercial version"
... whereas my understanding of the GPL itself is that there are no
exceptions, period ...

I can see why I lost you. I left out the most important bit. MySQL
AB uses the same GPL as the rest of the world. The difference is that
MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL relies on a very broad
interpretation of "derivative work." They tell their customers that
if the application requires MySQL that it is a derivative work
regardless of all the esoterica like how the application might be
linked, etc. From what I understand there are actually some
precedents that could be stretched to support this position.

The definition of a derivative work that the FSF uses is considerably
more narrow, but that's not because they want it to be so. The FSF is
simply using a definition that it is relatively certain that it can
defend in court. If MySQL AB were to set a precedent that widens what
constitutes a derivative work then the FSF would be very pleased.

Most developers don't have a clue about the intricacies of Free
Software licenses, and most managers are wary about getting on the
wrong side of the GPL (I would be too if there was a chance of having
to face Eben Moglen in court). Since the commercial license for MySQL
is not too terribly high, MySQL gets quite a few sales. Since the
whole kit-and-kaboodle is untested in court you can't even really
accuse MySQL of being devious. It's even possible that the courts
will uphold their version of what constitutes a derivative work.

Those of us here would rather go with the altogether safer PostgreSQL.
It won't truncate your large integers without warning, it doesn't
consider 0000-00-00 a valid date, and it's license is unambiguous.

I hope that is a little clearer.

Jason

Marc G. Fournier wrote:

my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
court of law, or how would you enforce it?

I think this is not the issue for most business owners. If something
even smells like it might end up in a court of law, they're not going to
touch it with the proverbial 10-foot pole. Especially something as
interchangeable as inexpensive database software. Regardess of how
outlandish MySQL's interpretation of the GPL might be, any sane
businessperson would try to conform to their intent (by paying
reasonable commercial licensing or just avoiding it altogether) rather
than try to aruge it in court.

- Marsh

El Jue 09 Oct 2003 13:05, Andrew Sullivan escribió:

On Thu, Oct 09, 2003 at 08:52:36AM -0600, scott.marlowe wrote:

Fact: If you write your application to work with ODBC -> MySQL
connectivity, you can write a closed source app and sell it for money and

Fact: nobody's ever tested any of this in court, so you're basically
risking it.

I think if people want legal advice about the status of MySQL's
claims about GPL, they'd best consult a lawyer who knows a lot about
software licenses.

How about making a consult to the lawer that writes in "Linux Journal",
Lawrence Rosen. I'm not sure if he still writes for LJ, but he can be caught
at www.lawrencerosen.com (well, the site says it's under construction).

By the way, the legal problemas are even more difficult then anyone can
imagine. They change from country to country.

--
08:32:01 up 7 days, 18:09, 2 users, load average: 0.04, 0.23, 0.37
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | mmarques@unl.edu.ar
Programador, Administrador, DBA | Centro de Telematica
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
-----------------------------------------------------------------

[sNip]

my personal question is how well any of this would even stand up in a
court of law, or how would you enforce it?

The problem is finding a volunteer who's willing to test this. =D

--
Randolf Richardson - rr@8x.ca
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
http://www.8x.ca/

This message originated from within a secure, reliable,
high-performance network ... a Novell NetWare network.