Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)
[email protected] Mon, 16 May 2005 12:22:57 -0700
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.enhydra.barracuda.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multipart message in MIME format.
--=_alternative 006A7AE188257003_=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Hi Christian,
1. If you are not distributing GPL code, you have no GPL issues (But see
#4 below)
From the http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, Section 0,
Paragraph 2:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
not covered by this License; they
are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not
restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made
by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the
Program does.
2. Internal distribution is NOT distribution
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution
Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or
company "distribution"?
No, in that case the organization is just making the
copies for itself. As a consequence,
a company or other organization can develop a modified
version and install that version
through its own facilities, without giving the staff
permission to release that modified version to outsiders.
However, when the organization transfers copies to other
organizations or individuals, that is distribution.
In particular, providing copies to contractors for use
off-site is distribution.
Even if not, you only have to provide the source to the people who
has obtained the executable.
They can't ask for the source if they don't have the exe.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIDemandACopy
If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I
demand he give me a copy?
No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute
copies of the program if he chooses to do so.
He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that
is what he chooses
3. There were some issue about the output of the application
FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL
In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL
too?
Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.
4. Here is where you may be in trouble.... It says you are ok. but in
the next paragraph it says you may not be.....
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnreleasedMods
A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a
web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it
without ever distributing it to others.
What this company is doing is a special case of that.
Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make
modifications and use them privately,
without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting
the program on a server machine
for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would
be legitimate to require release of the
source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing
something like this in
GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.
In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for
programs designed for network server use.
All of the above is really a secondary question.
The real question is does you program come under the GPL just because you
use the MySql jdbc driver.
Under the GPL, If your program uses a GPL library, then your program
becomes subject to the GPL (the reason for the LGPL, the Lesser GPL)
A. So the driver is under the GPL. If I make changes to the driver, I
have to release the changes to the driver.
B. If I use the driver, Is that like linking to the library? and comes
under the GPL.
C. Driver is not a library, and so my application is not subject to the
GPL.
So back to the GPL FAQ's
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCNFUseGPLPlugins
Seems to suggest that only way option C would apply is if an exec or fork
is used to access/invoke the driver
Finally, given that MySQL went through the effort to change their Driver
license from LGPL to GPL
(to "more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a
commercial license ")
would suggest that the applications would come under the GPL
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html
Previously, the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the
LGPL (the Lesser General Public License)
and now they use the GPL (the General Public License). What
prompted this change?
MySQL's goal is to provide all its software under a free
software/open source license. The change from the
LGPL to the GPL for the client libraries was made in 2001 during
the development of MySQL 4.0 to help MySQL AB
more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should
buy a commercial license ...
In Conclusion,
My opinion (I'm not a lawyer) is that if you use the MySQL driver, your
application becomes subject to the GPL license.
Given that the Barracuda is under the LGPL, no real issues with the
application.
So only issue is #4 above.... Using the application on a public web site
**MIGHT** be considered distribution in the future ...
Edward
Christian Cryder <[email protected]>
05/13/2005 11:54 AM
Please respond to christian.cryder
To: BarracudaMVC <[email protected]>
cc:
Subject: [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi off topic)
Hey, I am researching open source db's on Linux right now, looking
primarily at Postgress (BSD) vs. MySQL (GPL), and I am just wondering
about licensing issues. My understanding is that if you are simply _using_
a GPL'd product (like a db), rather than actually modiying or bundling it,
GPL wouldn't apply to your code. But the MySQL site seems kind of
ambiguous in how they describe it.
So to put it specfically - proprietary server based applications (ie.
vertical solutions) that use Barracuda, Tomcat, etc. and simply
store/retrieve data in a GPL DB would NOT be subject to GPL. Right?
Anyone know of any resources out there that would explicitly confirm (or
deny!) that understanding?
--
Christian
Christian Cryder
Internet Architect, ATMReports.com
"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com
--=_alternative 006A7AE188257003_=
Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII"
<br><font size=3>Hi Christian,</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3>1. If you are not distributing GPL code, you have
no GPL issues (But see #4 below)</font>
<br><font size=3> From the http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html,
Section 0, Paragraph 2:</font>
<br>
<br><font size=3> Activities other than
copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License;
they </font>
<br><font size=3> are outside its scope.
The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
Program </font>
<br><font size=3> is covered only if
its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having
been made </font>
<br><font size=3> by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">2. Internal distribution is NOT
distribution</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Is
making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
No, in that case the organization
is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
a company or other organization can develop
a modified version and install that version</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
through its own facilities, without giving
the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
However, when the organization transfers
copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
In particular, providing copies to contractors
for use off-site is distribution. </font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Even if not, you
only have to provide the source to the people who has obtained the executable.
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> They can't ask
for the source if they don't have the exe.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIDemandACopy</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> If
I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give
me a copy?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies
of the program if he chooses to do so. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is
what he chooses</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">3. There were some issue about
the output of the application</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> FAQ:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> In
what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
Only when the program copies part of itself into the output.</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">4. Here is where you may be in
trouble.... It says you are ok. but in the next paragraph it
says you may not be.....</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnreleasedMods</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> A
company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site.
Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without
ever distributing it to others. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore,
the company does not have to release the modified sources.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications
and use them privately,</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting
the program on a server machine </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use,
so it would be legitimate to require release of the </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something
like this in </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">
In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs
designed for network server use. </font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">All of the above is really a secondary
question. </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">The real question is does you program
come under the GPL just because you use the MySql jdbc driver.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Under the GPL, If your program uses
a GPL library, then your program becomes subject to the GPL (the
reason for the LGPL, the Lesser GPL)</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">A. So the driver is under the
GPL. If I make changes to the driver, I have to release the changes
to the driver.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">B. If I use the driver, Is that
like linking to the library? and comes under the GPL.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">C. Driver is not a library, and
so my application is not subject to the GPL.</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So back to the GPL FAQ's</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCNFUseGPLPlugins</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Seems to suggest that only way option
C would apply is if an exec or fork is used to access/invoke the driver</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Finally, given that MySQL went through
the effort to change their Driver license from LGPL to GPL </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">(to "more easily differentiate
between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial license ")
</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">would suggest that the applications
would come under the GPL</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> Previously,
the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the LGPL (the Lesser General
Public License) </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> and
now they use the GPL (the General Public License). What prompted this change?</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> MySQL's
goal is to provide all its software under a free software/open source license.
The change from the </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> LGPL
to the GPL for the client libraries was made in 2001 during the development
of MySQL 4.0 to help MySQL AB </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"> more
easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial
license ...</font>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">In Conclusion, </font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">My opinion (I'm not a lawyer) is that
if you use the MySQL driver, your application becomes subject to the GPL
license.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">Given that the Barracuda is under the
LGPL, no real issues with the application.</font>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif">So only issue is #4 above.... Using
the application on a public web site **MIGHT** be considered distribution
in the future ...</font>
<br>
<br><font size=2 face="sans-serif"><br>
Edward<br>
</font>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<table width=100%>
<tr valign=top>
<td>
<td><font size=1 face="sans-serif"><b>Christian Cryder <[email protected]></b></font>
<p><font size=1 face="sans-serif">05/13/2005 11:54 AM</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif">Please respond to christian.cryder</font>
<td><font size=1 face="Arial"> </font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> To:
BarracudaMVC <[email protected]></font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> cc:
</font>
<br><font size=1 face="sans-serif"> Subject:
[barracuda] Question about GPL (semi
off topic)</font></table>
<br>
<br>
<br><font size=3>Hey, I am researching open source db's on Linux right
now, looking primarily at Postgress (BSD) vs. MySQL (GPL), and I am just
wondering about licensing issues. My understanding is that if you are simply
_using_ a GPL'd product (like a db), rather than actually modiying or bundling
it, GPL wouldn't apply to your code. But the MySQL site seems kind of ambiguous
in how they describe it.<br>
<br>
So to put it specfically - proprietary server based applications (ie. vertical
solutions) that use Barracuda, Tomcat, etc. and simply store/retrieve data
in a GPL DB would NOT be subject to GPL. Right? <br>
<br>
Anyone know of any resources out there that would explicitly confirm (or
deny!) that understanding?</font>
<br><font size=3>-- </font>
<p><font size=3>Christian</font>
<p>
<table width=100%>
<tr>
<td width=100%>
<hr>
<tr>
<td><font size=3 face="Arial">Christian Cryder<br>
Internet Architect, </font><a href=http://atmreports.com/><font size=3 color=blue face="Arial"><u>ATMReports.com</u></font></a>
<tr>
<td>
<hr>
<tr>
<td>
<div align=center><font size=3><i>"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just
not today"</i></font><font size=3 color=blue><i><u><br>
</u></i></font><a href=http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com/><font size=2 color=blue><i><u>http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com</u></i></font></a></div></table>
<br>
<br>
--=_alternative 006A7AE188257003_=--