MySQL 4

[Jeff Spaleta]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 00:46:16 +0200, Thomas Zehetbauer
<thomasz at hostmaster.org> wrote:
> I just question RedHat's decision to favor PHP with it's proprietary
> license over GPL licensed MySQL.

Such loaded language... are you sure you don't write press releases for Sun?

so... every license that isnt gpl compatible is proprietary? That's an
interesting interpretation. I guess you have a problem with every
single license on OSI's list of licenses that meet OSI' open source
definition? Well every one except the GPL.
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

I take it you think the more permissive LGPL shouldn't exist and
should never be used?
And that it was a mistake that previous mysql releases had client
libraries which were released under the more permissive LGPL and thus
avoided the conflicts we are seeing now?

There was a reason the LGPL was used in the past by mysql, a very
specific reason, to make sure the client library had licensing terms
permissive enough so that outside projects using different licenses
could link against the client library code. This was a calculated move
to encourage adoption of mysql as a widely used backend for lots of
layered projects regardless of the license those projects were using.
If mysql had use the GPL from the outset for their client
libraries..we wouldnt have any problems right now, and i would dare
say mysql would be enjoying far fewer deployments than it currently
does. Mysql has been popular in large part because it could be linked
to from other projects under varying licenses. Your arguments fail to
ackowledge that LGPL'd mysql client libraries have continued value in
deployment specifically because they allow many different projects to
access mysql without licensing conflicts.  The GPL is MORE restrictive
than the LGPL  and mysql made the licensing change exactly for that
reason. Mysql wants to restrict access to the client libraries as much
as possible to encourage people to buy a proprietary license. Its a
business model bait and switch, and anyone who was using mysql client
library before in a deployment is going to LOSE functionality.

> I advocate the use of a license (GPL) that forces people to contribute
> their work and I don't like the way RedHat is treating MySQL 4. 

LGPL exists and in fact mysql client libraries was previous licensed
under LGPL to strike a balance.  If only mysql had not chosen to
encourage wide client library linking by outside projects by choosing
to GPL the client libraries instead of using the LGPL...if only.

> First
> they refused to update MySQL because PHP is incompatible with the GPL,
> so MySQL AB added the FOSS exception. 

Sigh, you aren't qualified to intelligently debate the finer points of
the FOSS exception.
Shouldn't you take solace in the fact that the right people at Red Hat
is engaged on the legal issues so that the legal specifics get worked
out to everyone's  satification.

>RedHat still refused to update
> MySQL because the new license was only on their website and not in the
> distribution. 

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. Again you aren't qualified to
remark as to what counts as a legally binding licensing agreement.

>Now there is a new tarball with the FOSS exception inside
> but still no RedHat RPMs because OF the FOSS exception. 

Again you aren't qualifed to remark on the technical details of
whether the FOSS exception actual does what is intented, and if its
actually workable. Second guessing qualifed legal opinion while easy
to do, doesn't move the debate forward.

-jef"second and last post on this thread"spaleta