Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)
Jacob Kjome <[email protected]> Wed, 1 Jun 2005 16:56:36 -0500
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.java.enhydra.barracuda.general |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
This is a multi-part message in MIME format... ------------=_1117663035-5154-167 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Quoting Christian Cryder <[email protected]>: > Jacob Kjome wrote: > > >Hi Christian, > > > >I think this has more to do with the preconditions they apply as to when > MySQL > >is to be run under the GPL and when it has to run under a proprietary > license. > >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 MyS= QL > 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, faili= ng > 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 > questions > >about how a GPL'd MySQL would affect your non-GPL'd code. But MySQL is > telling > >you that GPL is out of the question for ASP's (like yourself). As such, > your > >initial questions are probably meaningless as it pertains to MySQL. > However, > >if you use another DB which is only licensed under the GPL, then your > original > >questions and findings have meaning. > > > >Of course this is all completely my own interpretation so take it with a > great > >big grain of salt. > > > > > I suspect you are probably right, Jake - I just don't fully understand > it yet. Are you saying that someone can apply additional conditions to > GPL - ie. you can't be business type X, which does ABC, etc - without > actually modifying the GPL? That's the part I don't understand. I > thought the GPL carries the conditions of use within its verbiage. I may be way off conceptually (this is really just a shot in the dark), but= the idea is that this is not a question of interpretation of the GPL. It's a matter of which licence has been applied. Let me try to explain this with = an example... Let's say there is a software company with some product that has no inherent license applied to it. However, when the company wants to distribute the product, it must apply some license. It decides that it wants to keep the product open to usage for those not making money off the product but protect that product from others claiming the code as their own (GPL), but wants it= to tighten restrictions for those making money off the product (proprietary license). Since the product has no inherent license, it isn't until the end user gets the code that any licence is applied. As such, decisions can be = made up front as to who gets what license applied to them. For ASP's, the licen= se delivered along with the product is a proprietary one. For open source organizations (or general users not making money off the product) the produ= ct is delivered with the GPL. Does that make more sense? Again, I'm not explaining "how it is", but what= I theorized in my previous email. There's still probably the issue of the fa= ct that once the GPL'd version is out in the wild, how does one keep the GPL'd product from being used by an ASP who, otherwise, could ony obtain a non-GP= L'd product directly from the company. I didn't really take that into account.= If this is truly a problem, it would seem to require that companies have the ability to add restrictions to the GPL beyond the GPL's inherent restrictio= ns making my original analysis pretty much moot. > > I'm not really seeking to argue any particular point here - I'm just > trying to understand how this thing works, particularly in reference to > GPL... > > BTW, when I asked the MySQL guy this followup question: > > Hi Matt. Thanks so much for your response. > > I have a followup question (because I know I'm going to get asked > this by my peers here). Could you explain to me how the GPL has > anything to do with us being an ASP? In other words, what part of > the GPL distinguishes between whether a webapp on our servers is > being accessed internally (from local network) vs. externally (via > our clients)? Wouldn't we run into the exact same issue simply by > using Linux servers (after all, Linux is GPL too)? > > Please explain. Thanks. > > Christian > > here was his response: > > Christian, > > Linux is open source but I don't believe it is licensed under the > GPL. You can find the GPL terms and FAQ here, > http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html > > Regards, > > Matt > > Hmmm...that clearly isn't correct (cf. > http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html). Clearly. Hopefully that wasn't their laywer's answer! > So I'm waiting for further > explanation from them... Up to this point I just seem to be getting > vague answers, but hopefully they're clarify here soon. I'll keep people > posted on what they say, and if anyone else has insight, please feel > free to educate me... > This is a very interesting question. I can't wait to find out what the fin= al answer is :-) Jake > Christian > > > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Christian Cryder [mailto:[email protected]] > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2005 9:15 AM > *To:* Matt Fredrickson > *Subject:* Re: [Fwd: Fwd: MySQL Inquiry] > > > > > > >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#TOCInternalDistributi= on > >>> 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 y= et. > >>> > >>> 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/ > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > >-- > >Barracuda mailing list > >[email protected] > >http://www.objectweb.org/wws/lists/projects/barracuda > > > > > > > -- > > Christian > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Christian Cryder > Internet Architect, ATMReports.com <http://atmreports.com> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > /"Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today" > http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com/ > > ------------=_1117663035-5154-167 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 ------------=_1117663035-5154-167--