From: | "Marten G Mickos" <marten(at)mysql(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Jan Wieck <JanWieck(at)Yahoo(dot)com>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com> |
Cc: | Kaarel <kaarel(at)future(dot)ee>, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Marten G Mickos <marten(at)mysql(dot)com>, Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: About GPL and proprietary software |
Date: | 2003-09-23 17:33:15 |
Message-ID: | 3F70AE0B.2408.3CE7386@localhost |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
Scott et co.,
Thanks for your comment. Here is my response.
First of all, let's remember that neither I nor MySQL AB (nor any of
us) is an official authority for interpreting the GPL. Legally,
affirmative answers can only be given by a competent court. The FSF
is a natural authority on the GPL and whenever we are in doubt, we
turn to them for advice. But not being the authority on the topic
does not reduce our eagerness to discuss this topic!
Robert Treat already pointed out two main points:
- the GPL kicks in when you DISTRIBUTE
- the only ones truly suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the
ones who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without
giving anything back to the community
When it comes to the issue of linking or not, and the type of
linking, please have a look at the GPL FAQ on the GNU.org site. Here
is an important passage from it, showing that it is not only the
technicalities of the linking, but also the semantics of it. In other
words, the intent is as important as the method (just like in many
other issues defined by law - your intent in doing something may
determine whether it was a crime or not).
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
- - -
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).
- - -
Kind regards,
Marten
> I still feel MySQL is somewhat overstepping the bounds of the GPL. The
> GPL makes it clear that if I don't link to GPL code, I'm not bound by it.
>
> I.e. I can sell closed source PHP code to a customer, let them install
> their own PHP/Zend/MySQL server, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPL, and then I
> can install the encoded PHP and still be in keeping with the requirements
> of the GPL.
>
> In fact, one of the requirements of the GPL is that you can't just add
> requirements where you see fit. I.e. "your PHP app is commercial, it's
> not linked to our GPL code, but you HAVE to GPL it or buy a commercial
> license" violates the GPL itself.
>
> On Sat, 20 Sep 2003, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > FYI
> >
> > In answer to Kaarel's question
> >
> > Kaarel wrote:
> > > Would a perl application using DBI have a similar problem? Or how would
> > > one then legally use PHP with MySQL without GPL-ing your product and
> > > without buying MySQL commercial license?
> >
> >
> > Marten Mickos, CEO of MySQL AB Sweden answered and kindly gave me
> > permission to forward his reply to our General mailing list for this
> > question appears to be of broader interest:
> >
> > Marten G. Mickos wrote:
> > > Kaarel, Jan
> > >
> > > Thanks for your email, Jan!
> > >
> > > Our guiding principle is to have all our source code open, and to
> > > offer it free of payment (i.e. gratis) to those who commit to doing
> > > the same. We have concluded that the GPL licence best fulfills this
> > > principle, and that's why we use the GPL.
> > >
> > > Therefore the answer to Kaarel's question is:
> > >
> > > "Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed, will either have
> > > to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved open source
> > > licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL."
> > >
> > > Sometimes people say "But I cannot open source my application!" and
> > > they may have valid reasons for this. Our response is then: "If you
> > > have a valid reason not to be open source, wouldn't that same
> > > reasoning apply to us?".
> > >
> > > This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of Quid pro Quo -
> > > if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed
> > > source, we are commercial.
> > >
> > > I hope this was an answer to the question. Please let me know if you
> > > have any further questions.
> > >
> > >
> > > Kind regards,
> > >
> > > Marten
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
- - -
Marten Mickos
MySQL AB
tel (EUR) +358 40 500 1153
tel (USA) +1 650 283 5311
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | scott.marlowe | 2003-09-23 20:10:19 | Re: About GPL and proprietary software |
Previous Message | Christopher Browne | 2003-09-23 16:54:47 | Re: About GPL and proprietary software |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Vivek Khera | 2003-09-23 17:39:00 | Re: State of Beta 2 |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-09-23 17:28:48 | Re: [GENERAL] Can't Build 7.3.4 on OS X |