4 messages in com.mysql.lists.perlRe: DBD::mysql license?| From | Sent On | Attachments |
|---|---|---|
| Dave Rolsky | 14 Jan 2004 20:20 | |
| Rudy Lippan | 20 Jan 2004 19:33 | |
| Dave Rolsky | 24 Jan 2004 19:08 | |
| Dave Rolsky | 24 Jan 2004 19:11 |
| Subject: | Re: DBD::mysql license? |
|---|---|
| From: | Dave Rolsky (auta...@urth.org) |
| Date: | 01/24/2004 07:11:47 PM |
| List: | com.mysql.lists.perl |
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004, Rudy Lippan wrote:
Yeah. I noticed that a few weeks ago, but I did not release that there was a change as of 4.0 -- this actually makes things easier, methinks because there is nothing in the current version of DBD::mysql that uses the new api functions.
This means that DBD::mysql, which is currently under the "same as Perl license", is in violation of the libmysqlclient license.
Based on your comment above, it would be in violation iff I devloped against 4.x :)
This doesn't matter. In this case, the reason DBD::mysql is a derivative work is that it _links_ to libmysqlclient. If you link to libmysqlcient from MySQL 4.0+, you've made a derivative work of MySQL 4.0, and the derivative work must therefore be GPL'd (according to the GPL).
Moreover, it means that any code that uses DBD::mysql must be distributed under the GPL (if it is distributed at all), or the distributor would need to purchase a commercial license from MySQL.
If the distributor uses 4.x yes. Otherwise we are probably looking at a gray area?
Right, this all depends on what it's linked with.
Also, for those who care, from what I can tell the MySQL AB folks would like to claim that something like DBD::mysqlPP (the pure Perl MySQL DBI driver) would must be GPL'd. They are claiming that simply _interacting_ over a socket with the GPL MySQL server is sufficient to become a derivative work.
This seems pretty wack, to my reading of the GPL, since I always thought that "derivative" meant incorporating actual source and/or calling out to library functions which are directly linked, as opposed to communicating over a protocol.
Intersting. Would that mean that gaim is a derivative work of AOL IM? Or that samba is a derivative work of windows?
The logic seems the same. As I said, I don't buy this argument. I brought up the Samba example in my discussion with Zak Greant, MySQL's community liason person. My thinking if that MS hasn't tried to sue the Samba developers, then this case can't be won. After all, MS has a financial incentive to kill Samba (which helps people migrate _away_ from MS products), and the money for lawyers.
-dave
/*======================= House Absolute Consulting www.houseabsolute.com =======================*/