MySQL 4

[Paul Iadonisi]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 17:14, Alan Cox wrote:

[snip]

> The PHP authors don't have a problem with that, nor the apache authors nor
> a lot of other programmers. It doesn't look like a long term problem. I'd
> hope MySQL and other companies legal people can resolve their concerns but
> in the mean time a lot of users whom it affects are just migrating and having
> had MySQL change the licensing rules on them don't trust them any more.

  I had a rather long rant that I composed a few weeks ago about this
issue but decided not to send it due to the high degree of vitriol in it
:-).  Basically what my private rant was about was software authors who
change their licenses in ways that make it *more difficult* for FOSS
developers.  The legal phrase 'promissory estoppel' comes to mind, but I
know it's not exactly that.  Witness XFree86 (and the resulting fork,
X.Org), and before that The Open Group's attempt to change X11R6.4
license that caused such an uproar that they had to backpedal, for two
such previous examples.  I'm disappointed about Spamassassin's change
from the GPL, but at least in that case, I can't seen *any* practical or
legal problems with the change.
  People should remember that MySQL AB is also no stranger to initiating
litigation (though I have no opinion as to whether they were right or
Progress Software was right) and strange interpretations of the GPL. 
Their strange (and wildly incorrect, IMNSHO) interpretation of the GPL
is very likely what made them decide to change the client library
license from LGPL to GPL.  By their (maybe only old) view, every website
that ran on the Roxen web server would have to restrict access to
exclude all non-GPLed web browsers.
  I can't blame people for migrating.  Even being the GPL fanatic that I
am, I'm considering it myself.
-- 
-Paul Iadonisi
 Senior System Administrator
 Red Hat Certified Engineer / Local Linux Lobbyist
 Ever see a penguin fly?  --  Try Linux.
 GPL all the way: Sell services, don't lease secrets