Re: [ossig] CA open-sources Ingres database - News & Technology - CNETAsia

[Kenneth Wong <ken@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thursday 27 May 2004 13:12, Dinesh Nair wrote:
> > commercial license. However, if you merely use MySQL as your
> > database without linking to the libraries, then you can use the GPL
> > version and avoid using the commercial license, no?
>
> some part of it must link to the mysql libraries, even if you're
> using odbc. the question then remains on how your client program
> (which is not linked) communicates with the part that is linked. even

As you say later on, the definition of linkage is not well defined. 
However, it is likely that connection via TCP sockets is safe, 
otherwise our entire networking infrastructure needs a serious look at. 
In that case, the GPL MySQL server sits listening to connections on the 
socket.

Now the client library that connects via sockets to the GPL MySQL server 
would probably have to be non-GPL. There are several options for this, 
including using the older, LGPL libraries or reverse engineering your 
own libraries from scratch. Either way, you can use the GPL'ed MySQL 
server with your proprietary app. Whether you want to or not is a 
totally different matter. 

> > this case, the GPL version of MySQL database server (not client
> > libraries) should be legally acceptable. Morally is another matter.
>
> it is, but then the FSF will include a clause which prevents this in
> GPLv3, if and when it comes out. this same clause will conclusive
> answer the question of ASPs/ISPs using modified GPLed software to
> provide a public service.

The FSF will now say all software using GPLv3 can't even be communicated 
with using sockets? Right. Sure. Then it'll be 100% GPL Internet or 
nothing. I seriously don't think so.

Besides which, even if the FSF produces GPLv3, the current users of GPL 
do not have to upgrade the license to GPLv3. It's at their discretion 
and I doubt anyone would upgrade to something even more restrictive.

> > People may end up pointing to MySQL's page and say, "look! You
> > can't do anything commercial with the GPL!".
>
> i think a lot of this confusion also arises because people make the
> mistake of saying that all commercial software is closed source
> software, thus the phrase commercial software becomes another synonym

Right. Exactly. Note how MySQL writes it. If you want to be commercial, 
pay up. Not "if you want to be non-GPL, pay up". FUD. Thanks, MySQL, 
for perpetuating it.

> > The GPL isn't anti-commercial.
> that's actually a matter of definition.

I define commercial as being able to sell it or make money from it. From 
the GPL FAQ at:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCDoesTheGPLAllowMoney

"Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is 
part of the definition of free software ... "

Even more at http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/selling.html

So yes, GPL does allow and the FSF even encourages us to sell Free 
Software. 

Standard disclaimers apply.

-- 
Kenneth Wong
IOSN Programme Consultant, UNDP-APDIP, Malaysia
DID: +603 2091 5169 Fax: +603 2093 9740
International Open Source Network: http://www.iosn.net
UNDP Asia Pacific Development Information Programme: 
http://www.apdip.net


---------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe: send mail to ossig-request@mncc.com.my
with "unsubscribe ossig" in the body of the message