Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)

This is a multi-part message in MIME format...

------------=_1117649300-5154-124
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi Christian,

I think this has more to do with the preconditions they apply as to when My=
SQL
is to be run under the GPL and when it has to run under a proprietary licen=
se.=20
And I think the precondition turns on the entity using the product, not the=
 code
that might access the database.  You, being an ASP, can't obtain/use MySQL =
under
the GPL licence because of who you are.  If preconditions allowed you to
obtain/use MySQL under the GPL, then at that point you could consider GPL
restrictions and allowances as it pertains to your code.  However, failing =
that
precondition, any GPL considerations are moot.

Basically, I think you are dealing with two separate issues.  Initially, you
assumed that you could use MySQL under the GPL and then were asking questio=
ns
about how a GPL'd MySQL would affect your non-GPL'd code.  But MySQL is tel=
ling
you that GPL is out of the question for ASP's (like yourself).  As such, yo=
ur
initial questions are probably meaningless as it pertains to MySQL.  Howeve=
r,
if you use another DB which is only licensed under the GPL, then your origi=
nal
questions and findings have meaning.

Of course this is all completely my own interpretation so take it with a gr=
eat
big grain of salt.


Jake

Quoting Christian Cryder <[email protected]>:

> Just an FYI... Here's the response I got from the MySQL guys.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> From: Matt Fredrickson <[email protected]>
> Date: May 18, 2005 4:12 PM
> Subject: MySQL Inquiry
> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>
>
>
> Hi Christian,
>
> Thank you for your interest in MySQL.  If you are an ASP and your
> application is not open source, we will need to arrange some sort of
> arrangement.  Do you pay you a service or subscription fee?  How is
> that structured?
>
> If you are not an ASP and you are simply letting the public access
> your website, licensing is not required and you are fine with the GPL.
>
> Sincerely,
> Matt Fredrickson
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> So from their perspective, if you are an ASP (which we consider
> ourselves to be), you must either GPL your app -OR- pay them a license
> fee. Since we aren't inclined to do either of those, MySQL won't be an
> option for us.
>
> What is not clear to me is how they are reading the GPL to arrive at
> this conclusion. What is clear to me is that they evidently feel they
> have a legal basis for their position, so it seems fairly risky (to me)
> to simply bank on my own interpretation of the license here.
>
> If this is in fact the case, it would seem to have significant
> implications for any ASP models using GPL code - what they seem to be
> saying is that it doesn't matter whether you extend or even redistribute
> the code (we don't do either). What matters is that you are "a
> for-profit business is using the code in a centrally hosted application
> which their customers can access."
>
> Anyway, just thought I'd share our findings...
> Christian
>
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> > 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 ye=
t.
> >
> >             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_ <http://atmreports.com/>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > /"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"//_
> > _//_http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com_/
> > <http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com/>
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> --
>
> Christian
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Christian Cryder
> Internet Architect, ATMReports.com <http://atmreports.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> /"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today"
> http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com/
>
>





------------=_1117649300-5154-124
Content-Type: text/plain; name="message.footer"
Content-Disposition: inline; filename="message.footer"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit



--

Barracuda mailing list

[email protected]

http://www.objectweb.org/wws/lists/projects/barracuda


------------=_1117649300-5154-124--