On Wed, May 07, 2008 at 08:52:04AM +1000, Craig Sanders wrote: > > safesquid also seems to be integrated with other GPL-licensed programs > (incl. clamav and mysql). if they distribute them together with > safesquid, then that is more than just an aggregation as mentioned in > clause 2 of the GPLv2 (and clause 5 of the GPLv3), and they are also > violating the license terms of those programs. mysql are particularly > keen on enforcing their license terms. > To be fair (and I am not defending the astroturfing, just pointing something out), it depends on how the pieces "integrate." For example, if you access the database using some (appropriately licensed) ODBC or Perl DBD driver, then you could certainly license your application however you like. If you reverse engineer the MySQL client protocol and use that, then you could also license your application however you like. The snag comes when you use (in the case of MySQL) the client library, which is licensed under the GPL, without paying MySQL the fee for the commercial license. > this, of course, also applies to squid. if safesquid isn't actually > a derivative of squid (i can't tell for sure, their web site doesn't > say), then it is still bound by the GPL if they distribute it along with > squid....just like mysql & clamav (but even more so), it's too tightly > integrated with squid to be a mere aggregation on the same distribution > media. > So, simply interoperating with a product is not enough cause you to have to license some piece of software under the GPL. However, linking against one of its libraries may be. Regards, -Roberto -- Roberto C. Sánchez http://people.connexer.com/~roberto http://www.connexer.com
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature