You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to user@struts.apache.org by Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com> on 2005/04/14 03:27:36 UTC
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
After doing a little research on this I still wasn't getting a clear
picture, so I wrote to someone at MySQL AB (I found an e-mail address
for someone who seemed to welcome questions on the Web). I presented
what I thought were some typical scenarios of MySQL use (such as JDBC
applications and desktop apps that used an embedded database) and asked
him to please identify what the developer's obligations or
responsibilities would be in each scenario with regard to licensing. I
also told him I would like to share his answers with people on this list
if he didn't mind. So far (after two days) I haven't received a response.
The one paragraph I have found that sticks out to me is this one
(http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html):
"Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you
never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it
for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application
is under GPL license or not."
I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case)
are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for
their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just
merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture
(or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends
on what they mean by "distribute"; On another note, what if you had a
proprietary "system" that used a central MySQL server, but was meant to
be set up on many small networks?). To me that paragraph means you can
build a proprietary application that "uses MySQL as the database"
without having to buy a commercial license from MySQL.
You might say "that's obvious", but it seems to me like MySQL has been
moving toward a more restrictive model lately . . .
Someone please correct me if you understand their policy differently.
Erik
Dave Newton wrote:
> Fogleson, Allen wrote:
>
>> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
>> can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>> sections when you distribute them as separate works."
>>
>>
> From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
>
> "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
> alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
> sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
> that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
> single program.
>
> The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
> software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
> substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
> they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
> them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
>
> If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
> kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
> separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
> one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about
> this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the
> free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection."
>
> From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
>
> " If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
> definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
> linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
> combining them into one program."
>
> Like Craig says, this is an interesting issue with Java (and, I guess,
> shared libraries in general). And it's _still_ never been clear to me
> what, exactly, it means with regards to web applications.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com>.
Thanks. Good advice. But in a situation where there is no access to a
"legal team" (for lack of resources), I wonder if it would be smarter to
just take the time to switch to a different free or cheap database that
supports the standard JDBC transaction isolation levels (recommendations
with regard to licensing -- looking for BSD-style obviously -- are
appreciated). Seems weird though to be concerned when there are so many
of those PHP/MySQL sites out there, many of which might be free but
certainly would be considered proprietary. But then again, those
probably are less likely to raise any eyebrows. And you are right, words
like "extends" and "distribution" don't mean the same thing in a public
court as they do in a circle of programmers.
Erik
Craig McClanahan wrote:
>I can only caution you again ... it doesn't matter what the MySQL
>folks (or anyone else) says the license means. The only thing that
>matters is what a court would decide if the matter came up. In turn,
>that means you need to consult with *your* company's legal folks to
>advise what *their* recommendations are with respect to the use of the
>code under a particular license.
>
>After all, if it ever came to a dispute, *you* would be the one
>getting sued, not MySQL.
>
>Craig (who works for a company that has required review policies
>before *any* open source software can be used)
>
>On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>After doing a little research on this I still wasn't getting a clear
>>picture, so I wrote to someone at MySQL AB (I found an e-mail address
>>for someone who seemed to welcome questions on the Web). I presented
>>what I thought were some typical scenarios of MySQL use (such as JDBC
>>applications and desktop apps that used an embedded database) and asked
>>him to please identify what the developer's obligations or
>>responsibilities would be in each scenario with regard to licensing. I
>>also told him I would like to share his answers with people on this list
>>if he didn't mind. So far (after two days) I haven't received a response.
>>
>>The one paragraph I have found that sticks out to me is this one
>>(http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html):
>>
>>"Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you
>>never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it
>>for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application
>>is under GPL license or not."
>>
>>I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case)
>>are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for
>>their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just
>>merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture
>>(or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends
>>on what they mean by "distribute"; On another note, what if you had a
>>proprietary "system" that used a central MySQL server, but was meant to
>>be set up on many small networks?). To me that paragraph means you can
>>build a proprietary application that "uses MySQL as the database"
>>without having to buy a commercial license from MySQL.
>>
>>You might say "that's obvious", but it seems to me like MySQL has been
>>moving toward a more restrictive model lately . . .
>>
>>Someone please correct me if you understand their policy differently.
>>
>>Erik
>>
>>
>>Dave Newton wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Fogleson, Allen wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>"These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
>>>>identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
>>>>can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
>>>>themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
>>>>sections when you distribute them as separate works."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
>>>
>>>"However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
>>>alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
>>>sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
>>>that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
>>>single program.
>>>
>>>The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
>>>software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
>>>substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
>>>they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
>>>them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
>>>
>>>If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
>>>kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
>>>separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
>>>one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about
>>>this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the
>>>free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection."
>>>
>>>From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
>>>
>>>" If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
>>>definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
>>>linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
>>>combining them into one program."
>>>
>>>Like Craig says, this is an interesting issue with Java (and, I guess,
>>>shared libraries in general). And it's _still_ never been clear to me
>>>what, exactly, it means with regards to web applications.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>>For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>>For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by Craig McClanahan <cr...@gmail.com>.
I can only caution you again ... it doesn't matter what the MySQL
folks (or anyone else) says the license means. The only thing that
matters is what a court would decide if the matter came up. In turn,
that means you need to consult with *your* company's legal folks to
advise what *their* recommendations are with respect to the use of the
code under a particular license.
After all, if it ever came to a dispute, *you* would be the one
getting sued, not MySQL.
Craig (who works for a company that has required review policies
before *any* open source software can be used)
On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> After doing a little research on this I still wasn't getting a clear
> picture, so I wrote to someone at MySQL AB (I found an e-mail address
> for someone who seemed to welcome questions on the Web). I presented
> what I thought were some typical scenarios of MySQL use (such as JDBC
> applications and desktop apps that used an embedded database) and asked
> him to please identify what the developer's obligations or
> responsibilities would be in each scenario with regard to licensing. I
> also told him I would like to share his answers with people on this list
> if he didn't mind. So far (after two days) I haven't received a response.
>
> The one paragraph I have found that sticks out to me is this one
> (http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/opensource-license.html):
>
> "Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as you
> never distribute the MySQL Software in any way, you are free to use it
> for powering your application, irrespective of whether your application
> is under GPL license or not."
>
> I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case)
> are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for
> their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just
> merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture
> (or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends
> on what they mean by "distribute"; On another note, what if you had a
> proprietary "system" that used a central MySQL server, but was meant to
> be set up on many small networks?). To me that paragraph means you can
> build a proprietary application that "uses MySQL as the database"
> without having to buy a commercial license from MySQL.
>
> You might say "that's obvious", but it seems to me like MySQL has been
> moving toward a more restrictive model lately . . .
>
> Someone please correct me if you understand their policy differently.
>
> Erik
>
>
> Dave Newton wrote:
>
> > Fogleson, Allen wrote:
> >
> >> "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
> >> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
> >> can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> >> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> >> sections when you distribute them as separate works."
> >>
> >>
> > From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem
> >
> > "However, in many cases you can distribute the GPL-covered software
> > alongside your proprietary system. To do this validly, you must make
> > sure that the free and non-free programs communicate at arms length,
> > that they are not combined in a way that would make them effectively a
> > single program.
> >
> > The difference between this and "incorporating" the GPL-covered
> > software is partly a matter of substance and partly form. The
> > substantive part is this: if the two programs are combined so that
> > they become effectively two parts of one program, then you can't treat
> > them as two separate programs. So the GPL has to cover the whole thing.
> >
> > If the two programs remain well separated, like the compiler and the
> > kernel, or like an editor and a shell, then you can treat them as two
> > separate programs--but you have to do it properly. The issue is simply
> > one of form: how you describe what you are doing. Why do we care about
> > this? Because we want to make sure the users clearly understand the
> > free status of the GPL-covered software in the collection."
> >
> > From: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
> >
> > " If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are
> > definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run
> > linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means
> > combining them into one program."
> >
> > Like Craig says, this is an interesting issue with Java (and, I guess,
> > shared libraries in general). And it's _still_ never been clear to me
> > what, exactly, it means with regards to web applications.
> >
> > Dave
> >
> >
> >
> > ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> > For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by "M. Bitner" <mo...@gmail.com>.
<snip>The "modification" clause is why many businesses do not use GPL
software. They can't modify the source, even for internal use, without
their own work being encumbered by the GPL.
</snip>
The GPL only kicks in when you are distributing. You can freely modify
GPL'd software for your own use, even in a business setting.
The following is from the FSF's FAQ:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic
Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted
to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally
without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the
GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the
program's users, under the GPL.
Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in
certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to
release it is up to you.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com>.
Thanks Ted. Yes, I dig the BSD-style license, and I sure am glad Apache
is aligned that way. Too bad there doesn't seem to be a database on par
with MySQL under a BSD-style license, but PostgreSQL is at least
something I think I can work with. The GPL style license is just as
important to have around, but to me, developing under it is more for
those who can afford it (those who have a company sponsoring their open
source work that wants to invest in the community). For a guy like me,
trying to make it as a freelancer, GPL just doesn't fit the bill. How
could I make any money that way? And yet if it weren't for GPL products,
I wouldn't be here at all. I'm a die-hard Linux guy, and I think the
Linux kernel is a great example of what GPL can accomplish.
Maybe I will start writing a database and release it under a
hybrid-style license. You have to give up 5 out of every 10 secrets. :)
I've been wanting to do some C++ instead of Java anyway. :) Anyone want
to sponsor me?
Erik
http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/linux-kernel-cost.html
Ted Husted wrote:
>On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case)
>>are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for
>>their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just
>>merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture
>>(or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends
>>on what they mean by "distribute";
>>
>>
>
>Distribute a software product to a third-party that they can load onto
>their own hardware.
>
>The license is designed to cover circumstances when you are
>distributing a product to another party or modifying the source. Even
>the GPL is free for you to use out of the box for your own
>applications. The strings kick in when you distribute a software
>product to someone else to use on hardware you don't own, or modify
>the source -- even for your own use.
>
>The "modification" clause is why many businesses do not use GPL
>software. They can't modify the source, even for internal use, without
>their own work being encumbered by the GPL.
>
>It is sad that there are not more high-power database systems under
>BSD or Apache-style licenses, since these complications do not apply.
>If you distribute ASF software to a third party, you must acknowledge
>our copyright and license, but the software is otherwise free. If you
>modify the software for your own use, under the Apache License, your
>work is still your own.
>
>If you are distributing a product to others that includes GPL
>software, and you don't want to put your own work under the GPL, the
>end-user has to download the GPL package separately (e.g. MySQL) and
>then plug it in. (And you also have to be careful about how the
>plugging in process works.) If you distribute the product as a
>ready-to-go bundle, then the viral aspects of the GPL kick in, and
>your package must be GPL too. :(
>
>-Ted.
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------
>To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
>For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
RE: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by Daniel Perry <d....@netcase.co.uk>.
> If you are distributing a product to others that includes GPL
> software, and you don't want to put your own work under the GPL, the
> end-user has to download the GPL package separately (e.g. MySQL) and
> then plug it in. (And you also have to be careful about how the
> plugging in process works.) If you distribute the product as a
> ready-to-go bundle, then the viral aspects of the GPL kick in, and
> your package must be GPL too. :(
>
> -Ted.
Not strictly true.
You cannot distribute it as a single program. But you can distribute it
together.
Take a java web-app using mysql.
You can compile it and build a war (excluding the jdbc driver). This
program is therefore NOT including any GPL code (as long as you havnt used
any elsewhere), and not affected by the GPL license.
If you distribute it on a cd, with mysql and the jdbc jar on the cd, then
you are not breaking the rules, as the programs are separate. See:
http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation
You could probably get away with writing install scripts that install your
package, the mysql package, then install the extra jar.
Note that once the programs are combined again, they would break the rules
if distributed again with the jar file intact.
Daniel.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org
Re: [OT] question about open source data base selection
Posted by Ted Husted <te...@gmail.com>.
On 4/13/05, Erik Weber <er...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I get the feeling that the GPL restrictions (at least in MySQL's case)
> are meant for those who are taking the database and specializing it for
> their business (by altering or extending the source code) not just
> merely using it to power the data access layer of a site architecture
> (or even a desktop application with an embedded model -- but it depends
> on what they mean by "distribute";
Distribute a software product to a third-party that they can load onto
their own hardware.
The license is designed to cover circumstances when you are
distributing a product to another party or modifying the source. Even
the GPL is free for you to use out of the box for your own
applications. The strings kick in when you distribute a software
product to someone else to use on hardware you don't own, or modify
the source -- even for your own use.
The "modification" clause is why many businesses do not use GPL
software. They can't modify the source, even for internal use, without
their own work being encumbered by the GPL.
It is sad that there are not more high-power database systems under
BSD or Apache-style licenses, since these complications do not apply.
If you distribute ASF software to a third party, you must acknowledge
our copyright and license, but the software is otherwise free. If you
modify the software for your own use, under the Apache License, your
work is still your own.
If you are distributing a product to others that includes GPL
software, and you don't want to put your own work under the GPL, the
end-user has to download the GPL package separately (e.g. MySQL) and
then plug it in. (And you also have to be careful about how the
plugging in process works.) If you distribute the product as a
ready-to-go bundle, then the viral aspects of the GPL kick in, and
your package must be GPL too. :(
-Ted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: user-unsubscribe@struts.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: user-help@struts.apache.org