About GPL and proprietary software

[Kaarel]

I don't feel very confident when it comes to software licenses. But
there are some cases I would like to make myself clear. What I am
particulary interested in is when does GPL license become restrictive?
For example say a company has a proprietary software product that only
works with MySQL and no other database system. Are the following cases
legal?
1) This company sells his product under proprietary license and leaves
it up to the client to set up required MySQL server. Or perhaps helps
the client with seting up MySQL with or without extra fee.
2) Clients pay monthly fee to this company for using their proprietary
software which uses MySQL hosted in the companys server.
3) This company sells his product under proprietary license on the CD
which also includes MySQL as free bonus (with source code).

If these cases are valid, then when does GPL license for MySQL (or any
other software in that matter) become truly restrictive for a
proprietary company?

Kaarel
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match

[Bruce Momjian]

Jan Wieck wrote:

"Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed, will either have
to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved open source
licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL."
In this case, it is almost saying that if the application requires
MySQL, it has to be commercial, even if you don't distribute MySQL and
expect it to be part of the operating system --- again, reach as far
with the GPL as we can.
Sometimes people say "But I cannot open source my application!" and
they may have valid reasons for this. Our response is then: "If you
have a valid reason not to be open source, wouldn't that same
reasoning apply to us?".

This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of Quid pro Quo -
if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed
source, we are commercial.

This is call cute sounding, but to be fair, it is easy for a tool
company to promote GPL because you have revenue options by distributing
non-GPL versions, while application writers do not have many revenue
options for non-GPL versions.

I don't want to sound too harsh. MySQL is trying to make money, and
that is great. PostgreSQL tries to help all companies make more money.

What bothers me is the shading of the truth that MySQL is a company that
develops all code in-house, and uses the GPL as a way to gain market
share and the threat of GPL as a way to gain revenue. I think 1% of
MySQL users understand that, though I think that number is increasing
with the new MySQL 4.0 GPL library licensing. I guess it bothers me
that MySQL AB has been so successful at obscuring that fact.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pg***@candle.ph a.pa.us | [phone]
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

[Doug Quale]

Bruce Momjian <pg***@candle.p ha.pa.us> writes:

The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as
possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In
fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action
(legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible.
This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new
term).

First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is an error.
As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual
licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The FSF
is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code.

Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many
large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no
legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no
one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that
everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might.

License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions
about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have
questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of
us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF
interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF
interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find
or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself.

Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright
holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise.

If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command
(send "unregister YourEmailAddres sHere" to ma*******@postg resql.org)

[Bruce Momjian]

Doug Quale wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pg***@candle.p ha.pa.us> writes:

The fact is the MySQL and the FSF want to make the GPL reach as far as
possible, so there is no attempt to make a reasonable definition. In
fact, they rely on that fuzzy definition, and the threat of legal action
(legal extortion) to further the reach of the GPL as far as possible.
This is what bothers me the most --- license FUD (sounds like a new
term).

Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you
have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a
GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search
and didn't see your name.
First, conflating MySQL and the Free Software Foundation is an error.
As far as I know, the FSF hasn't said anything about MySQL's dual
licensing scheme or about MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. The FSF
is not the copyright holder of the MySQL source code.
I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are
trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as
possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_
because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together.
Your "legal extortion" claim is completely unfounded. There are many
large companies (Microsoft and IBM come to mind) who need have no
legal fear of the FSF. There are better possible explanations why no
If they don't use GPL code, you mean?
one has challenged the GPL in court than the absurd notion that
everyone is terrified by the FSF's irresistible legal might.
If the FSF is anything like GNU/Richard Stallman, I am sure there is lot
of pressure placed on folks --- I have heard stories, but of course, I
have no first-hand evidence. Stallman will not even do an interview if
you call it Linux instead of GNU/Linux --- that's sounds like extortion
right there.
License FUD is also a ridiculous notion. People have had questions
about the GPL (and other licenses), and people will continue to have
questions. Copyrights and licenses are a complex subject and most of
us are programmers, not lawyers. If you want to know how the FSF
Well, I have never heard someone complain about the BSD license being
confusing, at least since they removed the "advertisin g" clause, and the
BSD folks don't want it to be confusing, nor try to extend the license
to other pieces of software relying on it, nor to be vague so the BSD
license can extend to other pieces of software in a non-predictable way.
interprets the GPL in a specific circumstance, ask them. If the FSF
interpretation of the GPL doesn't give you the rights you want, find
or purchase code under a different license or write it yourself.
My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because
it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the
FSF (and MySQL) like it that way.
Why do you want to try to circumvent the wishes of the copyright
holder of GPL software? This is a morally bankrupt enterprise.
I don't have a problem with honoring the license intent of the GPL
software --- it is my code that they reach into and say I have to GPL
that bothers me.

Let's face it, most people choose a GPL license because they think it
_is_ the open-source license, not because they understand it --- if they
did, I am sure many would not choose it.
If you hate the GPL so much, I encourage you to stop using gcc.

If there something else better, I sure would. But gcc doesn't pollute
my work, I don't care too much.

The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be
open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where
appropriate, so we don't bully people.

I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you
something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't
really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in
public --- again, just a guess.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pg***@candle.ph a.pa.us | [phone]
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

[Christopher Browne]

Ja******@Yahoo. com (Jan Wieck) writes:

Robert Treat wrote:

On Tue, 2003-09-23 at 17:49, Christopher Browne wrote:

It would be most interesting if the makers of other GPLed software
such as Linux were to apply the same rule themselves.
That way, for MySQL to be distributed with Linux, MySQL AB might be
required to pay $450/box to Linus for licenses. Wouldn't _that_ be
ironic?

except that (gnu)linux is gpl'd, so they both fall under the
non-commercial license.

except that MySQL uses dual-licensing. The commercial license for
MySQL (the one you need to distribute your proprietary code) is
_not_ GPL.

And apparently people aren't getting my point.

I'm not even talking about the GPL, per se; I'm pointing at the
"ethical framework" in use. Look back at Marten's comment that Jan
posted:

This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of quid pro quo -
if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed
source, we are commercial.

In contrast with that, the assorted people involved in bringing us
such systems as Linux, FreeBSD, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Apache, Perl, GCC,
and many other such systems do NOT expect that sort of "quid pro quo."
The various "free Unix" systems appeared because a whole lot of people
were interested in having something freely available. The variations
in licenses don't change that, whatever the back and forth blustering
may be between those that want to despise others over their licenses.

He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable:

"The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones
who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving
anything back to the community."

That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly
peculiar understanding of the word "community. " (Presumably one where
the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and
employees of MySQL AB.")

In contrast, it generally seems to be regarded for typical "open
source" projects that having additional parties exploiting the systems
is, by and large, a good thing, and that benefits are likely to accrue
even in the absence of "commercial licenses."

But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar
burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB
are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source
projects don't see things that way.
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "acm.org")

[Greg Stark]

Bruce Momjian <pg***@candle.p ha.pa.us> writes:

Doug Quale wrote:

Doug, you showed up here because I talked about the GPL, not because you
have any interest in PostgreSQL, right? Someone tipped you off that a
GPL discussion was happening? I did a PostgreSQL mailing list search
and didn't see your name.
Perhaps this then isn't an appropriate place for the discussion? Once the
discussion's here it doesn't seem reasonable to say it's only ok to have it
here for some people but not others. I suggest moving it elsewhere.
I understand that. My point was that _both_ MySQL and the FSF are
trying to extend the GPL license (which they both use) as far as
possible, and not clearly specifying where it stops, _on_ _purpose_
because they like the uncertainty --- that's why I lumped them together.
The FSF and Stallman is very clear about where it stops. The confusion only
comes in because not everyone agrees with them. So you hear a million and one
variations.

The FSF's position is that the technical details of the interface between
modules is irrelevant. The way to judge whether a module is derivative of
another is by asking whether it has any purpose without the presence of the
other.

Eg, it doesn't matter whether you write a static library, a shared library
(like gimp plugins), or a separate executable that interfaces via the
command-line (like the cc1 executable that's part of gcc).

You don't just have to rely on the FSF's lawyers either. The few times they've
actually pushed the issue other company's lawyers (eg NeXT's in the case of
the Objective-C compiler for gcc -- a separate executable that interfaced via
the command-line) agreed with the FSF's interpretation.

The reality is that the courts do not go in for technical details. They care
more about real-world consequences. Telling a court that static libraries are
derivative but shared libraries which are exactly the same work but compiled
differently aren't, I'm told, wouldn't go over well in a court.

[It occurs to me that now there's a million-and-one variations.
Perhaps you shouldn't trust my explanation and go to the source instead.]
My point is that the FSF interpretation might be fantasy --- and because
it is so unclear, I can't even determine how far it reaches --- and the
FSF (and MySQL) like it that way.
That's pure FUD.

The FSF and Stallman have written numerous explanations, and it's really not
all that complex an argument. You may not agree with it, not everyone does,
but that shouldn't stop you from understanding it.
The key with the FSF is the _agenda_ that you push all software to be
open source --- the BSD license thinks that will happen anyway where
appropriate, so we don't bully people.
The FSF makes no secret of this goal. In fact it's in the GNU Manifesto and in
various essays written by Stallman. If people use the GPL without either
reading the GPL or any of the essays explaining its purpose then, well, sure,
people do dumb things sometimes.

I think you're wrong to assign any beliefs to the BSD license. Lots of people
use the BSD license with different intents. Some because they're less cynical
than the FSF about the success of free software, others because they just
don't care about the political aspects beyond their release.
I didn't send this to you privately because last time I sent you
something off-list, you never replied. My guess is that you aren't
really interested in discussion --- you just want to defend the GPL in
public --- again, just a guess.

Perhaps airing public criticisms -- especially ones that seem to amount to
``I don't know much about the GPL and it's the FSF's fault'' --
isn't a good idea if you don't want to see people step up and defend the thing
you're criticising.

--
greg
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

[Tom Lane]

Greg Stark <gs*****@mit.ed u> writes:

Bruce Momjian <pg***@candle.p ha.pa.us> writes:

[ lots of stuff about the GPL ]

Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

[Jan Wieck]

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Jan Wieck wrote:

> "Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed, will either have
> to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved open source
> licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL."

In this case, it is almost saying that if the application requires
MySQL, it has to be commercial, even if you don't distribute MySQL and
expect it to be part of the operating system --- again, reach as far
with the GPL as we can.

Moreover, the term "another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved" reduces
effectively to nothing. Imagine we would change some small details in
PostgreSQL like storing the system catalog in a MySQL database. We
continue to ship PostgreSQL under BSD, but it now requires MySQL. As
long as you use PostgreSQL in a GPL conformant context, that's probably
fine, but effectively all the freedom of our BSD license is gone because
you can't do anything else with it any more.
Jan

--
#============== =============== =============== =============== ===========#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#============== =============== =============== ====== Ja******@Yahoo. com #
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

[Marco Colombo]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2003, Tom Lane wrote:

Greg Stark <gs*****@mit.ed u> writes:

Bruce Momjian <pg***@candle.p ha.pa.us> writes:

[ lots of stuff about the GPL ]

Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.

regards, tom lane

<IANAL>
I subscribe to this. The point here is a comparison between licences,
whatever they are. Any discussion involving FSF is off-topic, since
AFAIK people at FSF have no rights over either MySQL or PostgreSQL code.
What _they_ think about what the wording of GPL means is totally
irrelevant, because they released no MySQL or PostgreSQL code, ever.

The only things that matter here are:
1) BSD licence of PostgreSQL, and _only_ in the way PostgreSQL authors
interpret it. After all, the wording of it is just an expression
of the authors' intent.
2) the licence of MySQL, and again, _only_ in the way they take it.

The comparison may be interesting, and definitely on topic.

The key point being:
when I (the author) release the software "X" under licence "L",
people having doubts about the meaning of "L" should ask me, and
I'll make clear what my intent is. Asking the authors of another
software, even they happened to use the same wording of "L" for
their licence, is useless. What they mean with "L" for their sw
is irrelevant.

I think MySQL people made their intent clear. We may discuss
whether their licence is a "real GPL" or not, and FSF people may
argue they shouldn't claim their sw is GPLed, but this discussion
does not belong here, but on GPL and MySQL lists.

Someone may think that MySQL licence (call it GPL or not, it's still
MySQL licence) is too restrictive for him, and turn to look at
PostgreSQL and wonder what the advantages of PostgreSQL licence are
(again, call it BSD or not, it's still PostgreSQL licence). _That_
would be an interesting discussion.
</IANAL>

..TM.
--
____/ ____/ /
/ / / Marco Colombo
___/ ___ / / Technical Manager
/ / / ESI s.r.l.
_____/ _____/ _/ Co*****@ESI.it

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster

[Richard Huxton]

On Thursday 25 September 2003 04:08, Christopher Browne wrote:
[snip]

He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable:

"The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones
who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving
anything back to the community."
That's the one that got my attention too. I must admit that although I've
never spent a penny on PG or related merchandise I do believe I've
contributed in my own small way. I must have answered over 1000 queries in
the last couple of years, hopefully helping several hundred people. My
PostgreSQL Notes were getting over a thousand hits a week at their peak -
presumably they were of benefit to _someone_.
That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly
peculiar understanding of the word "community. " (Presumably one where
the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and
employees of MySQL AB.")
Well, to be charitable if you view the key point of open source as being,
well, the source code they have a point. BSD code can end up pretty much
anywhere without any repercussions. If they had kept the GPL on the database
but stuck to the LGPL on the client libraries no-one would bat an eyelid.
It's the fact that merely _using_ MySQL now makes you conform to the GPL that
raises any questions.

[snip]
But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar
burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB
are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source
projects don't see things that way.

My take on this is it's all about ownership. With MySQL and Qt there are the
owners and the users, and not a lot of overlap. With PG, it's all a lot more
fuzzy. The SAP-DB mailing-list archives are a good illustration of the
difference - when the "transfer" to MySQL happened there were a lot of people
who suddenly realised exactly where they stood.

--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

http://archives.postgresql.org

[Joshua D. Drake]

Look, guys, this is way off topic for the Postgres lists. Postgres is
not a GPL project and will never be one. If you want to engage in
either defending or bashing the GPL, take it someplace else. Please.


Ahmen!

regards, tom lane

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
[phone] - jd@commandpromp t.com - http://www.commandprompt.com
The most reliable support for the most reliable Open Source database.

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to ma*******@postg resql.org