Mark Callaghan asks Can a protocol be GPL?, after finding a disturbing comment in a source file: Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL, unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
I recall talking with one of the company lawyers about this matter, and he assured me that the GPL can't be used for a protocol, and that's why this notice was dropped from MySQL.com site a few years ago, even before the Sun acquisition.
This is thus an embarrassing piece of ancient history (which will hopefully be removed soon) that has been in our files for long time. For how long?
If we get the source trees from the public bazaar …
Over in the blog post High Availability MySQL: Can a Protocol be
GPL? Mark Callahan found the following comment in the source
This file is the net layer API for the MySQL client/server protocol, which is a tightly coupled, proprietary protocol owned by MySQL AB. Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL, unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
I am second to few in being a fan and a proponent of the GPL. However, this claim in this comment is utterly bogus. It dates back to willful misunderstanding and FUD spreading and the desire to strong-arm the sale of licenses on the part some people at the old MySQL AB company.
If license of source code followed network protocol of running implementation (which stretches "derived work" to an extent even …
Topics for this podcast:
*Matt Asay moves from Alfresco to Canonical
*GPL fade fuels heated discussion
*Apple’s iPad and its enterprise and open source impact
*Open source in data warehousing and storage
*Our perspective on Oracle’s plans for Sun open source
Oracle’s plans for Sun’s OSS. The UK’s updated OSS strategy. And more.
Oracle’s plans for Sun’s OSS
# Oracle’s MySQL strategy slide.
# eWeek reported that database thought leaders are divided on Oracle MySQL.
# Zack Urlocker is leaving Oracle/Sun/MySQL.…[Read more]
We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift, according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard. Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given where open source is going these days.
I believe the emerging trend away …[Read more]
I've talked about this before, but I think it bears repeating as
we enter a new year. Sun has still not released the MySQL
documentation under the GPL license, or any other free license.
It's still not legal to modify and republish the database
documentation. This hurts projects like XtraDB, MariaDB,
Kickfire, Infobright and other companies which either have forked
the GPL licensed version of MySQL, or entered into a proprietary
license agreement with Sun.
These companies can't update the documentation to reflect the changes and enhancements which they have made to MySQL. I can't take the docs and publish changes or annotations without violating the license agreement for the docs.
If Sun wants to claim that MySQL is true open source then they must open source the documentation. If Oracle wants to claim that there is plenty of competition in the database market, they should be forced to open source the documentation. …
Having been a free software user and supporter for many years, I am disheartened by some of the comments made in the MySQL/Oracle debate regarding the GNU Public License (GPL) and other licenses. There is much throwing around of misconceptions and untruths about licenses and their differences. In this blog, I shall take on some of the bigger misconceptions.
While Linux is indeed distributed under the GPL, as is MySQL, Linux has an exception that allows anyone to run any kind of applications (including closed source applications) on top of Linux.
There is nothing in the GPL that forbids running closed source applications on top of GPL-licensed software. The only thing that GPL has in this regard is that if you make changes to GPL-licensed software and re-distribute it as a binary, then …[Read more]
A new round of GPL-based BusyBox suits has been filed, targeting big names in electronics and IT. We’ve long covered these series of GPL-based suits and settlements, but this latest round comes at an interesting time for open source software and its licensing.
First, we have the backdrop of the Oracle-Sun-MySQL acquisition, with opponents arguing to the world and the European Commission, which is reviewing the proposed merger before approving it, in part that the GPL is, ironically, granting too much power to its user, in this case Oracle. I’ve been quoted in the press and honestly agree with …[Read more]