[Increasingly OT] Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)

olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk (Oliver Elphick) writes:
> MySQL's licence does not require you to buy a licence for _any_
> commercial use, but only for commercial use where you do not release
> your source code under a GPL-compatible licence.

That's all well and good, but isn't consistent with what MySQL AB
writes about the matter.

Their page on licensing doesn't say what you wrote; it gives quite a
different message. When they write about it, they are surely
encouraging the perception that if you are using their product either:
a) For "commercial purposes," or
b) With non-GPLed code,
they expect you to pay for "commercial" licenses.

In a world where the activities of SCO are leaving people a little
edgy, that's leaving people sensitive to the notion that they might
get sued by a company for some form of 'infringment' irrespective of
what a license written by some other organization might say. (And
those that use BSD-based systems should not feel comfortable, either.
They have been affected, in the past, by similar issues.)

If I were to be cavalier and behave that the GPL applied in 'pure'
form to MySQL, I would be more than a little concerned that I might
get a letter from MySQL AB's lawyers demanding some combination of
"cease and desist" and "pay us the money you owe." That the demand
might be frivolous would not prevent this from costing me time, legal
fees, and lost hair and sleep.
--
(format nil "~S(at)~S" "cbbrowne" "acm.org")
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/oses.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #145. "My dungeon cell decor will not
feature exposed pipes. While they add to the gloomy atmosphere, they
are good conductors of vibrations and a lot of prisoners know Morse
code." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>