4 messages in com.mysql.lists.plusplusRe: pro domo static library for MySQL++| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Basile STARYNKEVITCH | 17 May 2007 13:00 | |
| Warren Young | 18 May 2007 03:27 | |
| Basile STARYNKEVITCH | 18 May 2007 06:06 | |
| Warren Young | 18 May 2007 07:19 |
| Subject: | Re: pro domo static library for MySQL++ |
|---|---|
| From: | Warren Young (mysq...@etr-usa.com) |
| Date: | 05/18/2007 03:27:55 AM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.plusplus |
Basile STARYNKEVITCH wrote:
However, I disagree with the argument that a GPL-ed library should be linked dynamically. Licence terms are legal stuff, linking mode is technical stuff.
The law does not allow you to reinterpret a license in a way that is technically convenient for you. The license's correct interpretation is independent of your wishes. If it's inconvenient for you to obey the license, you simply have no legal ability to use the software: standard copyright applies, you don't own the copyright on this software, and so you have no right to copy the software.
I only want to use mysqlpp in small CGI programs I am writing (opensource GPL licence). I am pretty sure I am not alone. But such CGI programs are deployed (ie used) on small cheap web sites, whose web hosting company usually does not provide any additional shared libraries than the barely essentials (like libmysqlclient, libc, libdl, libm and their dependencies). Some hosting companies don't even put a libstdc++.so - you need to link it statically!
A lawyer might argue that this usage wouldn't fall under the distribution terms of the GPL (v2, at least) since only company employees should have access to the server. Another lawyer might then argue that this still amounts to distribution, since the binary has been copied to a server not belonging to the company.
The only way to resolve that argument is to have a lawsuit; we can't resolve it here on the list. If that does not appeal, I suggest that you either 1) find a better web host; or 2) host your site on company-owned servers.
Again: just because it's inconvenient does not make it wrong. If you do not choose to take the technical steps required to comply with the GPL and LGPL, you have no license to use the software. It's that simple.