If I'm not mistaken using library that is GPLed will force your app to go GPL.
Is there a way to get away with MySQL GPL licence and use it in closed source (Not necessarily commercial)? Two scenarios here:
1. libmysqlclient is linked dynamically
1. libmysqlclient is linked statically
Thanks!
Your code is not GPL, only the software you use that is already GPL.
Your code is not GPL, only the software you use that is already GPL.
So are you saying that you can generate closed-source code, and use a license of your choosing for it, so long as you have an appropriate notice concerning, and provide access to, the MySQL License and Source in compliance with the GPL?
That would be my take on it.
If you are creating a toy and use Elmers Glue and Scotch Tape (both brand name products but available for "GPL licensing" as it were), your product isn't non-proprietary because of it.
Unless, of course, I'm wrong -- which is certainly possible...:-/
Thanks WaltP.
Let me take a look again at GPL and see!
Read more about the GPL here.
I cannot see anything dealing with source codes, only distributing it. How about linking? That is some sort of "modification", isn't it?
I am by no means an expert on these things, so the following is just an opinion.
I think that the wikipedia section on Linking and derived works under GPL is pretty interesting. It seems to be a pretty vague issue.
You also have to understand that licensing issues are rarely if ever pursued unless there is big bucks to be made. So, basically you don't have to worry about this until you make your first million with this software of yours. So, distributing a free-software in closed-source is probably not gonna get MySQL to sue you for all the non-profit you've been making (i.e. $ZERO$ ).
Finally, MySQL is probably not concerned very much by the use of the client-side code, they are probably happy with it. All their trade "secrets" (or what would be really secret if it was not GPL) is all in the server-side (all those fancy database query algorithms and data mining). And, if you ever decide to sell and make money with your software, you could just switch to a proprietary database system which wouldn't be hard at all anyways.
Remember that GPL is so that either you distribute for free or you don't. So, either you distribute your software open-source and let it take a life of its own in the open-source community. Or, you don't distribute your software until you decide that either it is serious enough to replace GPLed parts by equivalent proprietary (or BSD. LGPL) and distribute commercially, or until you decide to give up on that software and move on to under things.
Thanks Mike.
I think PostGreSQL need to utilize this to take over MySQL, or am I myopic?
Are youi linking to the MySQL libraries or including the source in your source? I would have to study it closer, but have you considered the Library version of GPL (The "LGPL")... It's now called the "Lesser GPL". It deals with including free libraries into a piece of software licensed with "terms of your choice".
LGPL and GPL are not the same licenses. MySQL is under GPL, it's not compatible with LGPL. The main difference is that GPL forces all "derived works" to also be licensed under GPL (or in the case of MySQL, under a compatible license, approved by the Open Source Initiative). While the LGPL, doesn't enforce that propagation of the license if you are only using it and not modifying or adding anything to it. You cannot decide to license your stuff under LGPL if you are using MySQL. The only real debate is whether simply using the client-side binary and API is considered "derived work". IMO, MySQL would be better off using LGPL at least for their client-side libraries, it would be less trouble and increase their user-base.
IMO, MySQL would be better off using LGPL at least for their client-side libraries, it would be less trouble and increase their user-base.
Mike I agree 100% with you. Why on earth will they use GPL for libmysqlclient?
They would at least apply LGPL for those who just link without modification to their code.
IMHO GPL have already turned many away, who won't gamble fighting oracle in court ;)
Sorry if I sound too US-centric.
In the USofA, nothing is legally certain unless the judge rules on it. The GPL has been tried several times in the court of law, but each case yet has been settled. No ruling has been produced. That is, nobody knows what exactly does the GPL mean (there was one case which outcome was that GPL does mean something).
Most experts agree that linking a GPLed library dynamically doesn't force the "main" code into GPL. The reasoning is very convincing... but anyway no court ruled on it.
In my opinion, it is OK to close source the GPL-linked code, provided you have guts to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The open source community will be eternally thankful for cleaning up the mess.
In my opinion, it is OK to close source the GPL-linked code, provided you have guts to go all the way to the Supreme Court. The open source community will be eternally thankful for cleaning up the mess.
the guts...there is where lies the problem. Go to Supreme court to fight Oracle?
And why Stallman did just that?
We're a friendly, industry-focused community of developers, IT pros, digital marketers, and technology enthusiasts meeting, networking, learning, and sharing knowledge.