You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to dev@subversion.apache.org by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> on 2002/07/05 16:42:55 UTC
MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Hey folks.
I get more feaked about these licenses issues all the time.
Where does one get the answers?
For instance, ODBC and MySQL
MySQL is GPL.
MySQL client libs are LGPL.
MyODBC is GPL with a big red caption that reads:
DISCLAIMER: MyODBC 3.51 binaries and sources are released under General
Public License, not under LGPL. As a special
exception to the MyODBC GPL license, one is
allowed to use MyODBC with any ODBC manager, even if the ODBC manager is
not GPL. In other words: The ODBC manager itself is not affected by the
MyODBC GPL license.
OK, how is the program using the ODBC manager affected?
For development I'm using UnixODBC which is LGPL.
Is there a web resource that will help get me unwrapped from the axil?
Why is it that whenever people try to do something nice for the world,
lawyers come in and f*** it all up!
Sorry for the rant.
But do you guys have any good resources to share?
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Bryan O'Sullivan <bo...@serpentine.com>.
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 10:43, Branko Čibej wrote:
> Sigh. This misconception pops up all the time. It's RMS (actually, the
> FSF, but in this case I think that's synonimous) who says the Apache
> licence is not compatible with (L)GPL, but of course that's his opinion
> -- personally, I think it's nonsense.
For practical purposes, all of MySQL is covered by the GPL unless issued
under a different license by MySQL AB (such as their commercial-use
license).
MySQL's licensing language is confusing and vague, and is most certainly
not simply a matter of "server is GPL, client is LGPL". I say this
because if one were to have commercial intentions regarding SVN, and
assumed it was safe to use MySQL as the fs component without relicensing
it from MySQL AB, one would be courting litigation.
<b
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Paul Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com>.
%% "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> writes:
>> I have no problem believing the GPL and the Apache license clash,
>> although I've never examined the Apache license enough to say.
gat> MySQL has a commercial license as well. If you want to embed it
gat> in a commercial product, you can buy a commercial license. This
gat> seems to fly in the face of the GPL. This dual license concept
gat> seems to expose a crack in the GPL world.
If you are the sole copyright holder of a work, you can release it under
as many different licenses as you like--and there's absolutely no reason
why those licenses must be consistent with each other.
The people you license it to under the GPL can use it under those terms;
the people you license it to under other licenses can use it under those
terms.
This is not a crack in the GPL, in any way. In fact, the FSF has no
problem with this kind of "dual licensing" at all, IIRC. People who
want to cooperate with the FSF agenda can do so using the GPL'd version,
while people to whom those licensing requirements are not acceptable can
attempt to come to an agreement with the copyright holder to use an
alternative license... most likely one where they have to pay $$ for it,
but they can then use it in ways the GPL does not allow.
Purists like the FSF will definitely not come to any such agreement, of
course, but others might.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
> I have no problem believing the GPL and the Apache license clash,
> although I've never examined the Apache license enough to say.
MySQL has a commercial license as well. If you want to embed it in a commercial
product, you can buy a commercial license. This seems to fly in the face of the
GPL.
This dual license concept seems to expose a crack in the GPL world.
But I know nothing. Which is why I posted about all this to begin with:-)
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Paul Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com>.
%% Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> writes:
>> If you are worried about licensing issues because of commercial
>> concerns, you must assume that you cannot freely use MySQL. It is not
>> compatible with the Subversion license.
b> Sigh. This misconception pops up all the time. It's RMS (actually,
b> the FSF, but in this case I think that's synonimous) who says the
b> Apache licence is not compatible with (L)GPL, but of course that's
b> his opinion -- personally, I think it's nonsense. For all practical
b> purposes, you can use LGPL code with Subversion.
I'm hard-pressed to think how the LGPL could be considered incompatible
with the Apache license--unless the Apache license is forcing it to be
so. Do you have a cite for such a claim?
I have no problem believing the GPL and the Apache license clash,
although I've never examined the Apache license enough to say.
PS. FWIW, the FSF and RMS never venture purely personal opinions on
legal matters. All their statements are endorsed by their lawyer.
Certainly he has an agenda, but, while it's nothing personal, I'd
bet on his personal opinion over yours, Branko :).
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey:
Branko ?ibej wrote:
> Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 09:42, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> >
> As for the MyODBC licence: My guess is that the intent of the exception
> is the same as in the glibc licence (which is also GPL, but also has an
> exception); namely, that is protects MyODBC itself from being ripped
> off. Why don't you contact the MyODBC authors, and get a statement from
> them?
OK. If they say it's cool for Subversion to support it via ODBC there
would be no license objections?
I realize that once I show my code to the group I will have to run the
Subversion gauntlet of course:-)
I'm working on abstractions that should allow me to support native APIs as
well.
This is a little tricky but interesting.
Thanks for the responses!
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Branko Čibej <br...@xbc.nu>.
Bryan O'Sullivan wrote:
>On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 09:42, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
>>MySQL is GPL.
>>MySQL client libs are LGPL.
>>MyODBC is GPL with a big red caption that reads:
>>
>>
>
>If you are worried about licensing issues because of commercial
>concerns, you must assume that you cannot freely use MySQL. It is not
>compatible with the Subversion license.
>
>
Sigh. This misconception pops up all the time. It's RMS (actually, the
FSF, but in this case I think that's synonimous) who says the Apache
licence is not compatible with (L)GPL, but of course that's his opinion
-- personally, I think it's nonsense. For all practical purposes, you
can use LGPL code with Subversion.
As for the MyODBC licence: My guess is that the intent of the exception
is the same as in the glibc licence (which is also GPL, but also has an
exception); namely, that is protects MyODBC itself from being ripped
off. Why don't you contact the MyODBC authors, and get a statement from
them?
--
Brane Čibej <br...@xbc.nu> http://www.xbc.nu/brane/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
"Paul Smith" <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> writes:
> I know there have been requests that this thread be deemed off-topic,
> but I'm not sure that it is.
Just to be clear: my request wasn't that the thread itself be deemed
off-topic, but that people making posts in this thread keep them
relevant to Subversion. Which not all of them have been :-).
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Paul Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com>.
%% "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bo...@serpentine.com> writes:
bo> On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 11:39, Paul Smith wrote:
>> Well, I double-checked right before I posted to make absolutely sure:
>>
>> http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements.html
>>
>> Looks like we have a discrepancy here... :-/.
bo> Ah, this is the version of the text that includes the obnoxious old
bo> chestnut: "This is because we view this as linking even if it is done
bo> over the network."
bo> This gave our lawyers fits.
Maybe so, but it's irrelevant for Subversion, as it only applies if (a)
you cannot work with any other SQL database except MySQL, _and_ (b) you
ship your product with the server included. Neither of which are true
for Subversion. And anyway, this is not relevant to the issue of how
the client library is licensed: it only discusses how the server is
licensed.
However, if they have changed the license of the client library to GPL,
that's a big problem. There are plenty of open source licenses which
are not compatible with the GPL, which means that none of those projects
would be able to use MySQL even as a client. Bummer.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Bryan O'Sullivan <bo...@serpentine.com>.
On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 11:39, Paul Smith wrote:
> Well, I double-checked right before I posted to make absolutely sure:
>
> http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements.html
>
> Looks like we have a discrepancy here... :-/.
Ah, this is the version of the text that includes the obnoxious old
chestnut: "This is because we view this as linking even if it is done
over the network."
This gave our lawyers fits.
<b
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Paul Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com>.
%% "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bo...@serpentine.com> writes:
bo> On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 08:16, Paul Smith wrote:
>> Because the MySQL client library is covered under the LGPL, not the GPL,
>> and there is _absolutely no problem at all_ linking the LGPL'd client
>> library with your package, no matter _what_ the license is.
bo> This is the sticking point. MySQL AB *used* to claim that the
bo> client library was covered by the LGPL, but they now make it clear
bo> that it is covered by the GPL.
bo> http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/o/Copyright.html
Well, I double-checked right before I posted to make absolutely sure:
http://www.mysql.com/support/arrangements.html
Looks like we have a discrepancy here... :-/.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Bryan O'Sullivan <bo...@serpentine.com>.
On Sun, 2002-07-07 at 08:16, Paul Smith wrote:
> Because the MySQL client library is covered under the LGPL, not the GPL,
> and there is _absolutely no problem at all_ linking the LGPL'd client
> library with your package, no matter _what_ the license is.
This is the sticking point. MySQL AB *used* to claim that the client
library was covered by the LGPL, but they now make it clear that it is
covered by the GPL.
http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/o/Copyright.html
Even when the client library was allegedly covered by the LGPL, it was
still de facto GPLed, because of a bizarre definition used by MySQL AB
to cover the notion of "linking".
Frankly, I'm glad they changed the client library to be GPLed. Their
additional licensing language used to be thoroughly obnoxious, but they
seem to have dropped all the stupidities and gone for something entirely
consistent and reasonable. Even if not compatible with SVN :-)
<b
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey:
ODBC isthe Open Data Base "C" API.
In involves DB vendors writing a driver that supports the standard. Applications
link against a development library that offers the ODBC Manager layer functions.
Managers provide the glue between the Application an the ODBC driver. They provide
selectable access to numerous DBs from the same central Manager. MS Windows
includes it with most their OSes.
Search for ODBC on the Web. You should find some decent architecture desriptions.
Anyway. My belief is that any license issues would fall to the end user. ODBC is
a open standard.
I'm using unixODBC right now. But iODBC is another choice.
As for lining against the client libs. I'm sure they do I'll have to go double
check the make files.
cheers
gat
Paul Smith wrote:
> I did read the thread, but I guess my major problem is I don't know what
> ODBC _is_. Is it some other interface to the DB that does not use the
> MySQL client library? Does the ODBC interface use MySQL code which is
> covered by the GPL?
>
> That is the only question of interest. If you are linking (even
> dynamically!) GPL'd code into your app, then you are in a grey area at
> best.
>
> If you are dynamically linking LGPL'd code into your app (through a
> shared library of some sort), then you are free and clear regardless of
> what license you are using.
>
> --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT: HA Software Mthds & Tools
> "Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Paul Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com>.
%% "Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <mc...@watson.ibm.com> writes:
>> Do you guys not want what I'm working on? Assuming it can make
>> through a code review of course. Or do you mean it in the sense
>> that I'm using ODBC so we should be fine?
mcc> It's a bit funny to me watching this discussion this
mcc> weekend. Stellation was released open-source last thursday. By
mcc> thursday afternoon, we had our first request/volunteer for adding
mcc> MySQL support. So we've been having almost exactly this
mcc> discussion about whether or not we can support MySQL due to the
mcc> fact that MySQL is GPL, and Stellation is CPL, and the two are
mcc> incompatible.
I know there have been requests that this thread be deemed off-topic,
but I'm not sure that it is.
Can someone please explain to me what problems you see with creating
interfaces to MySQL? How, exactly, are you interfacing with the
database?
Because the MySQL client library is covered under the LGPL, not the GPL,
and there is _absolutely no problem at all_ linking the LGPL'd client
library with your package, no matter _what_ the license is. It could be
100% proprietary and that would _still_ be OK. You just need to follow
the terms of the license which are not, after all, very onerous.
The only time you need to be concerned is if you're linking with GPL'd
code, such as the code contained in the MySQL server.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're doing when you are adding MySQL
support... are you not using the client library?
mcc> But these legal issues are tricky enough that a bunch of hackers
mcc> simply *can't* draw conclusions safely. It's obnoxious, but the
mcc> reality of the situation is, *someone* is going to have to consult
mcc> a lawyer about this, to make sure that what you want to do isn't
mcc> going to get Subversion into legal trouble.
Of course I'm not going to tell anyone they shouldn't consult an
attorney, but I think the situation surrounding the LGPL is quite well
understood, even by laymen, and the fact that LGPL libraries have been
used for years in this manner and no one, including the FSF, has lifted
a finger to stop it is pretty reassuring.
And, as I mentioned before, a very good way forward for those who don't
want to pay legal fees (maybe even safer, in some ways, than asking your
own attorney) is to just ask the copyright holder and see what they
say. I've known many people who've asked both the FSF and MySQL AB
about details of licensing and they always have responded with what they
think the license allows and doesn't. And, after all, what we're really
about here is following the wishes of the author as best we can, not
feeding the court system.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul D. Smith <pa...@nortelnetworks.com> HASMAT--HA Software Mthds & Tools
"Please remain calm...I may be mad, but I am a professional." --Mad Scientist
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are my opinions---Nortel Networks takes no responsibility for them.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL transactional support?
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
hey
I'm using InnoDB for my development.
No problems so far.
Although their tablespaces aren't as robust as Oracle's.
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL transactional support?
Posted by "Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <mc...@watson.ibm.com>.
On Sunday 07 July 2002 04:23 pm, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 10:29:02AM -0400, Mark C. Chu-Carroll wrote:
> > It's a bit funny to me watching this discussion this weekend. Stellation
> > was released open-source last thursday. By thursday afternoon, we had
> > our first request/volunteer for adding MySQL support. So we've been
> > having
>
> I know in my conversations with Dave Shields, he mentioned that
> MySQL didn't support transactions properly. Therefore, MySQL can
> not be used by anyone looking for a consistent DB. Or, have recent
> MySQL databases improved their robustness?
We looked at MySQL about a year ago, and at the time, transactional
tables had been added, but there was no way to wrap a collection
of statements into a single transaction. For Stellation, we need the
ability to properly handle long transactions, because our checkins
are a single transaction.
One of the first messages we got after we released the code last week
pointed us at the InnoDB extensions to MySQL, which add long-transaction
support. With InnoDB, MySQL can be used as a full ACID RDB.
> Regardless of the licensing debates, if that is still the case,
> that alone should make Subversion not use MySQL. Subversion is
> going to require solid transactional support on the backend. If
> MySQL is going to open the door for inconsistencies, then we must
> not support it.
With InnoDB, that's no longer the case. Single SQL statements are
all fully transactional, and there's a form of SQL support for long
transactions.
> In point of opinion, I believe MySQL is nightmare to work with and
> its (write) performance is awful. If we are going to support any SQL
> DB, IMHO, MySQL should not be our preference. -- justin
I haven't worked with it at all. InnoDB has some *very* impressive
performance numbers. But since we haven't put support for it
into Stellation (yet), I can't say how it works in practice.
-Mark
--
Mark Craig Chu-Carroll, IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
*** The Stellation project: Advanced SCM for Collaboration
*** http://www.eclipse.org/stellation
*** Work Email: mcc@watson.ibm.com ------- Personal Email: markcc@bestweb.net
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL transactional support?
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey:
Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 10:29:02AM -0400, Mark C. Chu-Carroll wrote:
> > It's a bit funny to me watching this discussion this weekend. Stellation
> > was released open-source last thursday. By thursday afternoon, we had
> > our first request/volunteer for adding MySQL support. So we've been having
>
> I know in my conversations with Dave Shields, he mentioned that
> MySQL didn't support transactions properly. Therefore, MySQL can
> not be used by anyone looking for a consistent DB. Or, have recent
> MySQL databases improved their robustness?
Not True. I have tested InnoDB and all seems good so far. I tested across
tables. All tables need to be InnoDB though. So unless someone can show me how
I'm wrong. It's all merely DB preference to me.
>
>
> Regardless of the licensing debates, if that is still the case,
> that alone should make Subversion not use MySQL.
Which DB do you suggest? I'll put it on my list to look at.
> Subversion is
> going to require solid transactional support on the backend. If
> MySQL is going to open the door for inconsistencies, then we must
> not support it.
I'm not concerned.
>
>
> In point of opinion, I believe MySQL is nightmare to work with and
> its (write) performance is awful. If we are going to support any SQL
> DB, IMHO, MySQL should not be our preference. -- justin
>
Well, I'm trying to design my stuff so that with a little work other databases
can be swapped in.
DB opinions are are like assholes... or something like that:-)
I so hate engaging in these "which is better" discussions. So much so that I
intend to support quite a few DBs before all is said and done.
Postgres comes to mind. Only, As far as I can tell, It doesn't support
tablespaces. This can be a problem when you are storing large files. Sure you
can use external references. But I'm not a advocate of that approach. Personal
taste I guess.
My repos will most likely start at about 50GB.
As for MySQL being a nightmare. Never had a problem installing, running, or
maintaining it.
Anyway, let me go back under the rock from which I came. When I have something
I will glading play review tenis:-)
Cheers,
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL transactional support?
Posted by Ask Bjoern Hansen <as...@develooper.com>.
On Sun, 7 Jul 2002, Justin Erenkrantz wrote:
Recent versions of MySQL does support transactions properly (through
the InnoDB backend and others).
[...]
> In point of opinion, I believe MySQL is nightmare to work with and
> its (write) performance is awful.
Configured properly MySQL can perform really really well. From my
experience (MySQL, postgresql, Oracle) it's also very simple to
install and administrate.
- ask
--
ask bjoern hansen, http://askbjoernhansen.com/ !try; do();
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
MySQL transactional support?
Posted by Justin Erenkrantz <je...@apache.org>.
On Sun, Jul 07, 2002 at 10:29:02AM -0400, Mark C. Chu-Carroll wrote:
> It's a bit funny to me watching this discussion this weekend. Stellation
> was released open-source last thursday. By thursday afternoon, we had
> our first request/volunteer for adding MySQL support. So we've been having
I know in my conversations with Dave Shields, he mentioned that
MySQL didn't support transactions properly. Therefore, MySQL can
not be used by anyone looking for a consistent DB. Or, have recent
MySQL databases improved their robustness?
Regardless of the licensing debates, if that is still the case,
that alone should make Subversion not use MySQL. Subversion is
going to require solid transactional support on the backend. If
MySQL is going to open the door for inconsistencies, then we must
not support it.
In point of opinion, I believe MySQL is nightmare to work with and
its (write) performance is awful. If we are going to support any SQL
DB, IMHO, MySQL should not be our preference. -- justin
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by "Mark C. Chu-Carroll" <mc...@watson.ibm.com>.
> Hey:
>
> Karl Fogel wrote:
>
>> Thanks for the heads up.
>>
>> We weren't planning to put any MySQL code into Subversion, so we
>> should be okay, but we'll keep this in mind for the future...
>
> What does this mean?
> Do you guys not want what I'm working on? Assuming it can make through
> a code review of course.
> Or do you mean it in the sense that I'm using ODBC so we should be
> fine?
It's a bit funny to me watching this discussion this weekend. Stellation
was released open-source last thursday. By thursday afternoon, we had
our first request/volunteer for adding MySQL support. So we've been having
almost exactly this discussion about whether or not we can support
MySQL due to the fact that MySQL is GPL, and Stellation is CPL, and
the two are incompatible.
We faced this earlier, because our primary support is PostgreSQL, and
the JDBC support is LGPL. Our lawyers thought that that was not a problem,
due to the way that JDBC loads and links DB specific components.
Unfortunately, I think that that's a very specific conclusion, due to
the particular properties of how JDBC works. Can it apply to ODBC
in SubVersion? I don't know. But these legal issues are tricky
enough that a bunch of hackers simply *can't* draw conclusions safely.
It's obnoxious, but the reality of the situation is, *someone* is going
to have to consult a lawyer about this, to make sure that what you want
to do isn't going to get Subversion into legal trouble.
-Mark
--
*** Mark Craig Chu-Carroll, <mc...@watson.ibm.com>
*** IBM T.J. Watson Research Center
*** The Stellation project:
http://domino.research.ibm.com/synedra/synedra.nsf
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by Karl Fogel <kf...@newton.ch.collab.net>.
"Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net> writes:
> Karl Fogel wrote:
> > We weren't planning to put any MySQL code into Subversion, so we
> > should be okay, but we'll keep this in mind for the future...
>
> What does this mean?
> Do you guys not want what I'm working on? Assuming it can make
> through a code review of course.
> Or do you mean it in the sense that I'm using ODBC so we should be fine?
Right (your last question, that is).
You're quoting a private mail out of context, so what I said above
probably won't make sense to most people here :-).
The original mail was sent by a friendly watcher to some CollabNet
ppl, warning us that if we're going to link MySQL with the Subversion
we ship, we might need to consult a lawyer first. My response simply
means "Thanks, we're not planning to do that anytime soon, so we'll
cross that bridge if/when we come to it."
That doesn't mean your code isn't wanted by the Subversion project
(which includes everyone working on SVN, not just CollabNet
employees).
But you wouldn't expect CollabNet to be making business plans based on
unfinished code being written by someone over whom it has little or no
influence, would you? :-)
-K
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MySQL vs SVN licensing
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey:
Karl Fogel wrote:
> Thanks for the heads up.
>
> We weren't planning to put any MySQL code into Subversion, so we
> should be okay, but we'll keep this in mind for the future...
What does this mean?
Do you guys not want what I'm working on? Assuming it can make through a code review
of course.
Or do you mean it in the sense that I'm using ODBC so we should be fine?
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Bryan O'Sullivan <bo...@serpentine.com>.
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 09:42, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> MySQL is GPL.
> MySQL client libs are LGPL.
> MyODBC is GPL with a big red caption that reads:
If you are worried about licensing issues because of commercial
concerns, you must assume that you cannot freely use MySQL. It is not
compatible with the Subversion license.
<b
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
> This is an unsafe assumption; talk to your company's lawyers.
>
> I don't wish to go down a licensing rathole for an unrelated project on
> the SVN mailing list, so please contact me off-list if you need further
> clarification.
>
>
Cool.
Sorry to stir up a hornets nest.
I will make sure that I support more than one DB at a minimum.
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Folks:
This licensing thing is a nightmare.
I got involved in Subversion because of a Oracle licensing rats nest. I spent
over a month working with IFS. When I went to check on licensing .... $80,000.
Plus I had development to do. This was for a web service we weren't sure we could
make any money on. We were in it for the goodwill to our customers and to improve
our efficiency.
Anyway, I decided to work on a SQL backend to Subversion. I'm in the process of
abstracting the DB access so that I can use ODBC, OCI or whatever anyone wants to
implement. I'm planning on implementing ODBC and OCI for now. So many people use
Oracle I figured I had to support it. I figure the ODBC will allow me to use
several DBs.
The bigger dilemma is in the feature differences of the various DBs. SO.... I'm
also working on an implementation abstraction. It's no magic bullet, but it
should allow support of some specific DB features through plugable code and/or
configurable SQL syntax.
The details will be released when I feel I can defend my choices. Until then, I'm
not sure how I'm doing it :-)
Time for me to go back to my cave:-)
Cheers
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Bryan O'Sullivan <bo...@serpentine.com>.
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 10:28, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> [... MySQL's ] regular C
> interface? Which is LGPL. I assume it is LGPL to allow commercial programs
> to use MySQL.
This is an unsafe assumption; talk to your company's lawyers.
I don't wish to go down a licensing rathole for an unrelated project on
the SVN mailing list, so please contact me off-list if you need further
clarification.
<b
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
Disclaimer: I can't claim to totally understand the relationships
between all these database components. I've tried to be clear that
"linking against" is the activity which may violate the GPL, where as
other activities (communicating over network sockets, using one tool to
create another, etc.) generally do not.
On Fri, 2002-07-05 at 13:28, Glenn A. Thompson wrote:
> > Does this have anything to do with Subversion?
> Yes. I'm working on a SQL FS.
Ah, okay, should have realized that. You should feel free to link
against LGPL code, but not against GPL code. Unless the GPL code has a
special exception covering the Subversion code, of course. (I realize
Branko disagrees with this assessment, claiming that he feels the
Subversion code is distributable under the GPL given its current
license, but I think he's in the minority.)
> I don't believe it's an easy answer at all.
> MyODBC is GPL except for ODBC Managers can use another license scheme.
> What is the intent of the exception.
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Daniel Berlin <db...@dberlin.org>.
> >
> > http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
> >
> > > Why is it that whenever people try to do something nice for the world,
> > > lawyers come in and f*** it all up?
> >
> > Lawyers have not generally decided what licenses get attached to free
> > software; software authors have.
>
> Yes, but developers don't always get what they "thought they asked for" from
> their lawyers.
> I know I've run into this problem:-)
Then you need better lawyers.
--Dan
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by "Glenn A. Thompson" <gt...@cdr.net>.
Hey:
Greg Hudson wrote:
> Does this have anything to do with Subversion?
Yes. I'm working on a SQL FS.
>
> > OK, how is the program using the ODBC manager affected?
>
> If it links against GPL source (such as MyODBC), then it must be
> distributable under the GPL.
>
> > Is there a web resource that will help me get unwrapped from the axil?
>
> You haven't really said what you want information on, other than one
> specific easily-answered question. A google search on "free software
> licenses" turns up:
>
I don't believe it's an easy answer at all.
MyODBC is GPL except for ODBC Managers can use another license scheme.
What is the intent of the exception. Is it to pass the license burden up
stream to the user? Do they want it to be more like their regular C
interface? Which is LGPL. I assume it is LGPL to allow commercial programs
to use MySQL.
ODBC exists to provide generic dynamic binding to DBs. This would imply, to
me at least, that the end user is the "linker" of the code. A programmer is
merely developing to a standard API. He links to the ODBC Manager. The
dynamic driver libraries are loaded at the users request.
Seems a little gray to me.
When two licenses conflict, who wins?
>
> http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
>
> > Why is it that whenever people try to do something nice for the world,
> > lawyers come in and f*** it all up?
>
> Lawyers have not generally decided what licenses get attached to free
> software; software authors have.
Yes, but developers don't always get what they "thought they asked for" from
their lawyers.
I know I've run into this problem:-)
gat
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org
Re: MIT, Apache, BSD, GPL, LGPL what the h*ll
Posted by Greg Hudson <gh...@MIT.EDU>.
Does this have anything to do with Subversion?
> OK, how is the program using the ODBC manager affected?
If it links against GPL source (such as MyODBC), then it must be
distributable under the GPL.
> Is there a web resource that will help me get unwrapped from the axil?
You haven't really said what you want information on, other than one
specific easily-answered question. A google search on "free software
licenses" turns up:
http://zooko.com/license_quick_ref.html
> Why is it that whenever people try to do something nice for the world,
> lawyers come in and f*** it all up?
Lawyers have not generally decided what licenses get attached to free
software; software authors have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@subversion.tigris.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@subversion.tigris.org