Shyamal Prasad <shyamal.prasad@sbcglobal.net> [2003:10:11:18:26:01-0500] scribed: > "Joey" == Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> writes: > > Joey> Chris Spencer wrote: > >> That's correct. You must purchase a MySQL license to use it in > >> this fashion. Apache, PHP, and Debian are all fine. No > >> purchase is required. > >> > >> > What are the repercussions to my client, as a result of this > >> model? > >> > >> Buy MySQL. Make the product. Sell the product. > > Joey> The situation you describe would mean that mysql would be > Joey> non-free, and thus not part of Debian. > > mysql is licensed under GPL, but the original poster wanted to keep > certain modifications to the complete application proprietary. To do > this they would have to purchase a commercial license from MySQL AB. > > I don't remember how exactly it was done, but the MySQL licensing > terms define any application that uses the database to implement a > major part of its features is deemed a "modification" (or something > similar) of mysql, and so the entire application must be GPL'ed. Yes, this is my interpretation of Section 3 at: <http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html> My problem is trying to understand the final impact of those words. Seems to be a difference of opinion on this list; so, I guess I need to take this up with the MySQL folks. Nonetheless, consensus on this list indicates that no other piece of what we are doing is questionable license-wise? Anybody disagree? -- Best Regards, mds mds resource 877.596.8237 - Dare to fix things before they break . . . - Our capacity for understanding is inversely proportional to how much we think we know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know . . . --
Attachment:
pgpPt9MBHTjOB.pgp
Description: PGP signature