Commercial Java program bundled with 'free' database?

G

Guest

Daniel said:
The licence terms are mostly dependent on the definition of "linking".
If your application links with MySQL code then it is required to be made
available under the same terms. The important libraries for linking
with on Linux, such as glibc, are licensed under the LGPL rather than
the GPL.

One important question is the meaning of "linking", which is somewhat
different in the Java/.NET world today than in the 1980's C/C++ world.

But I still think there are a point in distribution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

(wikipedia is not an authoritative source but ...)

Quotes:

"The GPL does not give the licensee unlimited redistribution rights. The
right to redistribute is granted only if the licensee includes the
source code (or a legally binding offer to provide the source code),
including any modifications made. Furthermore, the distributed copies,
including the modifications, must also be licensed under the terms of
the GPL."

"This requirement is known as copyleft, and it gets its legal teeth from
the fact that the program is copyrighted. Because it is copyrighted, a
licensee has no right to modify or redistribute it (barring fair use),
except under the terms of the copyleft."

"The copyleft only applies when a person seeks to redistribute the program."

To me this seems to be strictly tied to distribution.

Arne
 
D

Daniel Dyer

One important question is the meaning of "linking", which is somewhat
different in the Java/.NET world today than in the 1980's C/C++ world.

But I still think there are a point in distribution.

I didn't mean to suggest that it was irrelevant.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License

(wikipedia is not an authoritative source but ...)

Quotes:

"The GPL does not give the licensee unlimited redistribution rights. The
right to redistribute is granted only if the licensee includes the
source code (or a legally binding offer to provide the source code),
including any modifications made. Furthermore, the distributed copies,
including the modifications, must also be licensed under the terms of
the GPL."

"This requirement is known as copyleft, and it gets its legal teeth from
the fact that the program is copyrighted. Because it is copyrighted, a
licensee has no right to modify or redistribute it (barring fair use),
except under the terms of the copyleft."

"The copyleft only applies when a person seeks to redistribute the
program."

To me this seems to be strictly tied to distribution.

Your argument makes sense and there seems to be nothing in the text of the
licence itself that would contradict it. The FAQ for the GPL
(http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html) is a bit less clear. But then
again, it's not exactly a balanced document. I found this gem warning me
of the perils of not using the GPL for my software:

"Only people willing to give up their freedom will use your software,
which means that it will effectively function as an inducement for people
to lose their freedom."


Dan.
 
C

Chris Uppal

David Segall wrote:

[me:]
There is no requirement to GPL an application because it makes use of
a separate GPL application.

If you (the supplier of the software) supply GPled s/w as part of your
delivered application then I think the terms of the GPL are clear -- the whole
application must be GPLed or supplied under the terms of some other
GPL-compatible[*] licence.

Whether those terms are acceptable to suppliers, including suppliers of
commercial apps, is a different matter. If they /are/ acceptable then fine; if
not then that's just tough.

-- chris

[*] Note: not even all "free" software comes with a GPL-compatible license. I
doubt, though I'm not certain, whether the licence for my own free stuff is
GPL-compatible -- not that I care very much either way.
 
C

Chris Uppal

Simon Brooke wrote:

[me:]
And the problem with that is? It's the licence I use for all the products
I ship to clients.

No problem at all, /if/ that fits your commercial model.

-- chris
 
C

Chris Smith

David Segall said:
The MySQL Database Server Community Edition comes with a GNU Public
License. Apart from some simple conditions such as the obligation to
provide the source code on request is there anything that prevents the
OP from distributing the DBMS with the application?

This is debatable, but MySQL's position as I understand it is that yes,
there is something that prevents this. If you read further, as I have
in the past, there are even more eyebrow-raising statements out there
from the MySQL AB, including: (a) telling customers that an app will
work with MySQL counts as "distribution" of MySQL, and (b) MySQL refuses
to tell you whether they think you need a license or not, but it's safer
if you buy a license.

In the end, I disagree with the advice to ask a lawyer. Instead, I
would avoid MySQL altogether for pretty my anything, even GPL
applications. We're talking about a company that has delusional views
of their legal rights, and a propensity to at least threaten legal
action on a regular basis. Talking to a lawyer doesn't protect you from
expensive legal action in the future. Even if your app is GPL, can you
be sure what they will do if you decide not to relicense under GPL v3
when it comes out, for example?

There are good quality databases out there that are not as likely to get
you sued. Several have already been mentioned in this thread.
 
C

Chris Smith

Korto said:
Thank you, everyone, for the advice and input. You are correct, I may
need to talk with a legal expert before I continue on with this
project. Also, I'll check out those freely distributable databases and
also look into the Community Edition of MySQL.

As I said elsewhere in the thread, talking to a lawyer is not
necessarily a good idea. It costs money, and it also doesn't guarantee
that you won't be the subject of legal action in the future. MySQL
either intentionally misleads or has greatly exaggerated views of their
ability to restrict your rights, and they clearly don't want you to do
what you are planning to do. They can cost you a lot of money with a
lawsuit, even if they lose.

I'd just avoid MySQL altogether; it's not like there are no other
databases out there. For example, PostgreSQL is distributed under a
license and the INTENT to allow you to do whatever you want with it.
The developers have a long history of working well with companies that
sell improved versions of the core DBMS, much less applications that use
it. No one has even close to majority ownership, so there's no one to
sue you anyway. This basically completely avoids the legal risk you're
taking with MySQL.
 
C

Chris Smith

Chris said:
If you (the supplier of the software) supply GPled s/w as part of your
delivered application then I think the terms of the GPL are clear -- the whole
application must be GPLed or supplied under the terms of some other
GPL-compatible[*] licence.

Right. The question, then, is whether a DBMS is part of an application,
or another application that interacts with the application in question.
I think it's pretty obvious that the latter is true. Others may
disagree. MySQL is (IMO rather transparently) on a campaign to distort
the meaning of the GPL to the point that no one is quite sure what to
think. Yes, I'm rather frustrated by their actions, in part because
I've written and published GPL software in the past that may be a victim
of their campaign of misinformation.

In any case, not using MySQL removes the difficulty at very little cost.
In fact, people should really just stop considering MySQL a GPL'ed
product, because the legal threats do just as much harm to people's
freedoms as a more restrictive license does.
 
D

David Segall

Chris Smith said:
This is debatable, but MySQL's position as I understand it is that yes,
there is something that prevents this. If you read further, as I have
in the past, there are even more eyebrow-raising statements out there
from the MySQL AB, including: (a) telling customers that an app will
work with MySQL counts as "distribution" of MySQL, and (b) MySQL refuses
to tell you whether they think you need a license or not, but it's safer
if you buy a license.
Thanks Chris. You have explained the basis of this thread. I have
never had anything to do with MySQL so I was extremely puzzled by the
OPs concerns. PostgreSQL encourages widespread free distribution and
Derby, the one I am using at the moment, is about to be distributed as
part of the Java language. Why does anyone use MySQL, particularly
since there are so many freely distributable choices and most people
have no interest in the source code?
 
C

Chris Uppal

Chris Smith wrote:

[me:]
If you (the supplier of the software) supply GPled s/w as part of your
delivered application then I think the terms of the GPL are clear --
the whole application must be GPLed or supplied under the terms of some
other GPL-compatible[*] licence.

Right. The question, then, is whether a DBMS is part of an application,
or another application that interacts with the application in question.
I think it's pretty obvious that the latter is true. Others may
disagree.

Me, for one ;-)

I'll agree that there may be cases where an application is clearly independent
of MySQL, even if a MySQL installation is shipped with it, and the user is
given the option of installing it. For the me (no lawyer) the criterion would
be "does the application clearly run, and do something useful (perhaps with
reduced functionality), if MySQL isn't available ?" One easy way to achieve
that logical separation would be if the app worked just as well with a range of
DBMSs, and was capable of using whatever the user had installed (within
reason). That doesn't seem too far away from the language of the GPL (section
2)

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. But when you distribute the same
sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the
Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms
of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend
to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless
of who wrote it.

But I wouldn't want to bet money that a lawyer/court would agree that the
separation I mentioned above is sufficient to make the last quoted sentence
irrelevant.

And often, of course, applications do not have that degree of separation -- in
which case I would claim that the DBMS /is/ part of the delivered app and the
terms of the GPL apply in full force.

MySQL is (IMO rather transparently) on a campaign to distort
the meaning of the GPL to the point that no one is quite sure what to
think.

I'm not convinced that many people will pay much attention to how MySQL choose
to interpret the GPL. Hell, I'm not convinced that many people even think
about how /they/ interpret the GPL beyond "I didn't pay for this stuff, so I
can do whatever I like with it".

But I do agree that it would be better if MySQL issued their stuff under a
licence which says what they want it to say, rather than (even partly)
overloading the GPL.

In any case, not using MySQL removes the difficulty at very little cost.

Agreed.


In fact, people should really just stop considering MySQL a GPL'ed
product, because the legal threats do just as much harm to people's
freedoms as a more restrictive license does.

There's something to be said for that too.

-- chris
 
C

Chris Uppal

David said:
Why does anyone use MySQL, particularly
since there are so many freely distributable choices and most people
have no interest in the source code?

Search me...

I don't know of any technical reasons either, although I'm no expert on the
relative technical merits of DBMSs.

-- chris (Uppal, note, not Smith)
 

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments. After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.

Ask a Question

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,483
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top