[Leaplist] GPL good or bad?

[Jim Hartley]

A little while ago I decided I needed to do something with a data base 
(SQL). I looked at various choices, and MySQL was certainly a viable 
candidate to do the job. Then I looked at all the horse-hockey MySQL 
licensing ...

I write stories and sell them to various pubs and e-pubs, and the 
database is to keep track of which stories I've sent where. I'm really 
trying to develop this into a paying business, filing a Schedule C with 
my taxes. Hmmm, that makes this a commercial venture ... what was that 
MySQL said about license fees for commercial use? Of course I doubt 
they'd ever find out if I just installed a GPL copy, but still ...

So I used PostGreSQL, which has a nice simple FREE license for everyone. 
Problem solved!

Jim Hartley

Steve Litt wrote:
> On Monday 21 December 2009 15:46:14 Vernon Singleton wrote:
>> This is not easy to understand ...
>> http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-model-of-mysql
>> -or.html
>>
>> He says, "One can fork a GPL project (i.e. the code), but one can't
>> easily duplicate the economic infrastructure around it."
>>
>> Ok.  I'm with you ... makes sense right?
>>
>> He later says, "Most of the technology partners, where most of the
>> innovation in the MySQL space happen nowadays, depend on being able to
>> get licenses for MySQL so that they can combine their closed source
>> application or closed code (like storage engines) with MySQL."
>>
>> Someone help me.  What licenses is he talking about?  Apparently not
>> the GPL.  Aren't the licenses he is talking about the kind of dual
>> licenses that the GPL expressly forbids?
>>
>> He then later says, "I think that GPL is a fantastic license".
>>
>> Now I'm really lost.  Imagine that.
>>
> 
> 
> I quote from the article:
> 
> "the fork can't be used by anyone who needs to distribute it with their own 
> closed source parts or use it with others closed source parts."
> 
> Oh Bullfeathers! You can't *link* your closed code with GPL code. But you can 
> certainly aggregate the two on the same CD. I quote from GPL version 2:
> 
> "In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program with 
> the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of a storage or 
> distribution medium does not bring the other work under the scope of this 
> License."
> 
> Monty knows this.
> 
> There are many, many ways to use MySQL that don't involve linking your program 
> with MySQL code. If nothing else, you could make a GPL program to expose the 
> MySQL feature set from external commands (i.e. mysql executable) and make it 
> accessible through a socket. One side of the socket is proprietary, the other 
> is GPL, and nowhere do the code sets mix in source or binary form. Heck, I 
> could probably write it myself.
> 
> Monty knows this.
> 
> I therefore believe this article to be disingenuous. My guess is that Monty 
> has an agenda to which I'm not privy, and for reasons I don't know is trying 
> to sow the seeds of doubt as to the survival of MySQL. What I DO know is that 
> Monty is the lead developer for MariaDB, which IIRC is an interface drop in 
> replacement for MySQL, and that MariaDB and MySQL are competitors.
> 
> Whatever the agenda, I'd be very cautious about basing any beliefs about the 
> GPL on Monty's article.
> 
> STeveT
> 
> Steve Litt
> Recession Relief Package
> http://www.recession-relief.US
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/stevelitt
> 
> 

-- 
Teen Angel - a ghost story - http://teenangel.netfirms.com

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is
believed to be clean.