Re: I want to use postresql for this app, but...

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 12:13 am, Claudio Cicali wrote:
> Paul Thomas wrote:
> > On 09/02/2004 15:25 Jan Wieck wrote:
> >> Paul Thomas wrote:
> >> [snip]
> >> In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there
> >> are significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open".
> >> MySQL is not free, so if the application developed is closed
> >> source, it requires the end user to purchase a commercial MySQL
> >> license per installation.
> >
> > Another good point in our favour IMHO.
>
> This is *WRONG*.
>
> MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.
>
> Please refer to this page for further details.
> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

MySQL seems to have a weird self-serving interpretation of GPL and I
don't trust them. They repeatedly talk about restrictions on
_internal_ distribution. From the MySQL licensing page
(http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html) they have a:

"...Commercial License, which allows you to provide commercial
software licenses to your customers or distribute MySQL-based
applications within your organization. This is for organizations that
do not want to release the source code for their applications as open
source / free software..."

From the MySQL licensing FAQ
(http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html):
"Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as
you never distribute (internally or externally) the MySQL Software in
any way, you are free to use it for powering your application,
irrespective of whether your application is under GPL license or
not."

From the MySQL commercial license page
(http://www.mysql.com/products/commercial-license.html):
"If you distribute MySQL Software within your organization, you should
purchase a commercial license."

The same page in its description of things interpreted to be
commercial distribution of MySQL includes this gem:

"Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves
on their own machines."

If this licensing interpretation applied to Linux (imagining for the
moment that a commercial licence for Linux were to exist) any
organization wishing to use the Linux version of Oracle or OpenOffice
or even PostgreSQL even for strictly internal use would have to
purchase a commercial Linux license.

MySQL claims on its licensing page that "MySQL AB bases its
interpretation of the GPL on the Free Software Foundation's
Frequently Asked Questions" and includes a link to that FAQ but note
the disparity between MySQL's interpretation and the FSF
interpretation which reads
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic):

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

IANAL but it appears to me from their FAQs that MySQL AB seeks to
require any company using a MySQL based product in any way to buy a
commercial license.

I'll stick with PostgreSQL (and not just for the license).

Cheers,
Steve