MySQL和许可混淆 [英] MySQL and licensing confusion

问题描述

关于MySQL'

断言的可行性存在很多问题，它可以决定什么构成衍生作品，以便使用GPL对抗
开发人员不希望他们的软件GPL'

并迫使他们支付商业许可证。


根据律师我说'根据

GPL的信函，咨询了以下结论：


选择GPL版本的MySQL的商业用户不是

被迫在GPL下发布他们的应用程序，如果他们没有包含任何

提供的接口代码，可以随意使用它们的b
$ b通过MySQL。换句话说，如果您使用

ODBC接口，则不是通过关联GPL您的软件。如果

您使用MySQL C-library接口，编译到您的应用程序中，

那么它就是GPL'。


通过TCP / IP连接到数据库的简单行为不是
构成GPL服务器的派生作品。建立自己的

C库接口，基于协议信息，你可以从他们的C库源推断
不构成派生

工作。根据

GPL中详述的条件，将GPL的应用程序和来源分发到您的专有应用程序的同一张CD上，并不构成衍生作品。


基本上，没有理由说商业用户不能自由地使用

GPL版本的MySQL。
<开发人员不能对GPL强加自己的限制，除非

他们发布自己的许可证。 MySQL AB在其网站上声明，GPL发布的版本是100％GPL，这意味着GPL的条款和

条件适用。如果他们选择在GPL的

修改版本下发布，那么它不是100％GPL，他们需要

在他们的网站上清楚地提供此许可证。它基本上会成为一个MySQL AB公共许可证（不是GPL），条件是

限制用户随意使用。


换句话说，你不能说，这个软件是100％GPL版本

但如果你是商业用户那么你就不能在GPL下使用它了

专有应用程序，仅仅因为GPL没有限制这样的

。这个说法与说如果你通过网络通过Windows连接到Linux的Linux，那么Windows必须是GPL。 -

一个废话断言。这种限制要求MySQL AB

创建具有这种特定条件的自己的免费使用许可。


结论：是的，弗吉尼亚州，你可以使用GPL'的MySQL版本与你的专有软件一起使用

。

解决方案

B. Pigman写道：

关于MySQL'
断言的可行性，有很多问题，它可以决定什么构成派生作品，以便
对那些不希望他们的软件使用GPL的开发者使用GPL并迫使他们支付商业许可。


使用PostgreSQL，它更好，并没有这些问题。

根据律师的说法我已根据
GPL，结论如下：

选择GPL版本的MySQL的商业用户不会被迫在GPL下发布他们的应用程序并且可以使用它 ODBC接口，则不是通过关联GPL您的软件。如果您使用MySQL C-library接口，编译到您的应用程序中，那么它就是GPL'。


律师们错过了ODBC驱动程序链接到MySQL代码的事实，

这反过来意味着你的应用程序链接到MySQL代码。通过TCP / IP连接到数据库的简单行为不构成GPL服务器的派生工作。根据您可以从其C库源推断的协议信息构建您自己的C库接口并不构成派生的工作。根据GPL中详述的条件，将GPL的应用程序和来源分发到与您的专有应用程序相同的CD上，并不构成衍生作品。

基本上，没有理由说商业用户无法自由地使用GPL版本的MySQL。

不是，你需要非GPL或LGPL传输层。


我不反对GPL，事实上我是它的支持者。话虽如此，

它是一个被MySQL滥用的强大许可证。他们使用

GPL非常具有病毒性，仅仅是共享软件。


几年前，我为PHP编写了一个高速会话管理器。会话

服务器是GPL，但接口库是LGPL，并且实际的PHP

扩展名已经签署给了PHP人员。

B中。 Pigman写道：

关于MySQL'
断言的可行性，有很多问题，它可以决定什么构成派生作品，以便
对那些不希望他们的软件使用GPL的开发者使用GPL并迫使他们支付商业许可。


使用PostgreSQL，它更好，并没有这些问题。

根据律师的说法我已根据
GPL，结论如下：

选择GPL版本的MySQL的商业用户不会被迫在GPL下发布他们的应用程序并且可以使用它 ODBC接口，则不是通过关联GPL您的软件。如果您使用MySQL C-library接口，编译到您的应用程序中，那么它就是GPL'。


律师们错过了ODBC驱动程序链接到MySQL代码的事实，

这反过来意味着你的应用程序链接到MySQL代码。通过TCP / IP连接到数据库的简单行为不构成GPL服务器的派生工作。根据您可以从其C库源推断的协议信息构建您自己的C库接口并不构成派生的工作。根据GPL中详述的条件，将GPL的应用程序和来源分发到与您的专有应用程序相同的CD上，并不构成衍生作品。

基本上，没有理由说商业用户无法自由地使用GPL版本的MySQL。

不是，你需要非GPL或LGPL传输层。


我不反对GPL，事实上我是它的支持者。话虽如此，

它是一个被MySQL滥用的强大许可证。他们使用

GPL非常具有病毒性，仅仅是共享软件。


几年前，我为PHP编写了一个高速会话管理器。会话

服务器是GPL，但接口库是LGPL，并且实际的PHP

扩展名已经签署给了PHP人员。

B中。 Pigman写道：

关于MySQL'
断言的可行性，有很多问题，它可以决定什么构成派生作品，以便
对那些不希望他们的软件使用GPL的开发者使用GPL并迫使他们支付商业许可。


使用PostgreSQL，它更好，并没有这些问题。

根据律师的说法我已根据
GPL，结论如下：

选择GPL版本的MySQL的商业用户不会被迫在GPL下发布他们的应用程序并且可以使用它 ODBC接口，则不是通过关联GPL您的软件。如果您使用MySQL C-library接口，编译到您的应用程序中，那么它就是GPL'。


律师们错过了ODBC驱动程序链接到MySQL代码的事实，

这反过来意味着你的应用程序链接到MySQL代码。通过TCP / IP连接到数据库的简单行为不构成GPL服务器的派生工作。根据您可以从其C库源推断的协议信息构建您自己的C库接口并不构成派生的工作。根据GPL中详述的条件，将GPL的应用程序和来源分发到与您的专有应用程序相同的CD上，并不构成衍生作品。

基本上，没有理由说商业用户无法自由地使用GPL版本的MySQL。

不是，你需要非GPL或LGPL传输层。


我不反对GPL，事实上我是它的支持者。话虽如此，

它是一个被MySQL滥用的强大许可证。他们使用

GPL非常具有病毒性，仅仅是共享软件。


几年前，我为PHP编写了一个高速会话管理器。会话

服务器是GPL，但接口库是LGPL，并且实际的PHP

扩展名已经签署给了PHP人员。

There have been many questions as to the viability of MySQL''s
assertion that it can dictate what constitutes a derived work in order
to use the GPL against developers who don''t wish their software GPL''d
and force them to pay for a commercial license.

According to the lawyers I''ve consulted, based on the letter of the
GPL, here is the conclusion:

Commercial users of MySQL opting for the GPL''d version are not
compelled to release their applications under GPL and may use it
freely with their applications provided they do not incorporate any of
the interface code provided by MySQL. In other words, if you use the
ODBC interface, you are not GPLing your software by association. If
you use the MySQL C-library interface, compiled into your application,
then it''s GPL''d.

The simple act of connecting to a database by TCP/IP is does not
constitute a derived work of the GPL''d server. Building your own
C-library interface based on the protocol information you can
extrapolate from their C-library source does not constitute a derived
work. Distributing a GPL''d application and source on the same CD as
your proprietary application, as per the conditions detailed in the
GPL, does not constitute a derived work.

Basically, there is no reason why a commercial user cannot use the
GPL''d version of MySQL freely and without worry.

A developer cannot impose its own restrictions over the GPL unless
they release their own license. MySQL AB states, on their website,
that the GPL released version is 100% GPL, meaning that the terms and
conditions of the GPL apply. If they choose to release it under a
modified version of the GPL, then it is not 100% GPL and they need to
provide this license clearly on their website. It would essentially
become a MySQL AB Public License (not GPL) with conditions that
restrict users as they please.

In other words, you cannot say, "this software is a 100% GPL release
but if you''re a commercial user then you can''t use it under GPL with a
proprietary application", simply because the GPL makes no such
restriction. This claim is no different than saying, "If you connect
to Linux over the network with Windows, then Windows must be GPL''d." -
a bullshit assertion. This kind of restriction would require MySQL AB
create their own free-use license with such a specific condition.

Conclusion: Yes, Virginia, you can use the GPL''d version of MySQL with
your proprietary software.

解决方案

B. Pigman wrote:

There have been many questions as to the viability of MySQL''s
assertion that it can dictate what constitutes a derived work in order
to use the GPL against developers who don''t wish their software GPL''d
and force them to pay for a commercial license.
Use PostgreSQL, its better and doesn''t have these problems.

According to the lawyers I''ve consulted, based on the letter of the
GPL, here is the conclusion:

Commercial users of MySQL opting for the GPL''d version are not
compelled to release their applications under GPL and may use it
freely with their applications provided they do not incorporate any of
the interface code provided by MySQL. In other words, if you use the
ODBC interface, you are not GPLing your software by association. If
you use the MySQL C-library interface, compiled into your application,
then it''s GPL''d.
The lawyers are missing the fact that the ODBC driver links to MySQL code,
and that in turn means your application is linked to MySQL code.

The simple act of connecting to a database by TCP/IP is does not
constitute a derived work of the GPL''d server. Building your own
C-library interface based on the protocol information you can
extrapolate from their C-library source does not constitute a derived
work. Distributing a GPL''d application and source on the same CD as
your proprietary application, as per the conditions detailed in the
GPL, does not constitute a derived work.

Basically, there is no reason why a commercial user cannot use the
GPL''d version of MySQL freely and without worry.

Not true, you need a non-GPL or LGPL transport layer.

I am not against the GPL, in fact I am a proponent of it. That being said,
it is a powerful license that is being abused by MySQL. Their use of the
GPL is quite viral and amounts to nothing more than shareware.

A few years back, I wrote a high speed session manager for PHP. The session
server was GPL, but the interface library was LGPL, and the actual PHP
extension was signed over to the PHP guys.

B. Pigman wrote:

There have been many questions as to the viability of MySQL''s
assertion that it can dictate what constitutes a derived work in order
to use the GPL against developers who don''t wish their software GPL''d
and force them to pay for a commercial license.
Use PostgreSQL, its better and doesn''t have these problems.

According to the lawyers I''ve consulted, based on the letter of the
GPL, here is the conclusion:

Commercial users of MySQL opting for the GPL''d version are not
compelled to release their applications under GPL and may use it
freely with their applications provided they do not incorporate any of
the interface code provided by MySQL. In other words, if you use the
ODBC interface, you are not GPLing your software by association. If
you use the MySQL C-library interface, compiled into your application,
then it''s GPL''d.
The lawyers are missing the fact that the ODBC driver links to MySQL code,
and that in turn means your application is linked to MySQL code.

The simple act of connecting to a database by TCP/IP is does not
constitute a derived work of the GPL''d server. Building your own
C-library interface based on the protocol information you can
extrapolate from their C-library source does not constitute a derived
work. Distributing a GPL''d application and source on the same CD as
your proprietary application, as per the conditions detailed in the
GPL, does not constitute a derived work.

Basically, there is no reason why a commercial user cannot use the
GPL''d version of MySQL freely and without worry.

Not true, you need a non-GPL or LGPL transport layer.

I am not against the GPL, in fact I am a proponent of it. That being said,
it is a powerful license that is being abused by MySQL. Their use of the
GPL is quite viral and amounts to nothing more than shareware.

A few years back, I wrote a high speed session manager for PHP. The session
server was GPL, but the interface library was LGPL, and the actual PHP
extension was signed over to the PHP guys.

B. Pigman wrote:

There have been many questions as to the viability of MySQL''s
assertion that it can dictate what constitutes a derived work in order
to use the GPL against developers who don''t wish their software GPL''d
and force them to pay for a commercial license.
Use PostgreSQL, its better and doesn''t have these problems.

According to the lawyers I''ve consulted, based on the letter of the
GPL, here is the conclusion:

Commercial users of MySQL opting for the GPL''d version are not
compelled to release their applications under GPL and may use it
freely with their applications provided they do not incorporate any of
the interface code provided by MySQL. In other words, if you use the
ODBC interface, you are not GPLing your software by association. If
you use the MySQL C-library interface, compiled into your application,
then it''s GPL''d.
The lawyers are missing the fact that the ODBC driver links to MySQL code,
and that in turn means your application is linked to MySQL code.

The simple act of connecting to a database by TCP/IP is does not
constitute a derived work of the GPL''d server. Building your own
C-library interface based on the protocol information you can
extrapolate from their C-library source does not constitute a derived
work. Distributing a GPL''d application and source on the same CD as
your proprietary application, as per the conditions detailed in the
GPL, does not constitute a derived work.

Basically, there is no reason why a commercial user cannot use the
GPL''d version of MySQL freely and without worry.

Not true, you need a non-GPL or LGPL transport layer.

I am not against the GPL, in fact I am a proponent of it. That being said,
it is a powerful license that is being abused by MySQL. Their use of the
GPL is quite viral and amounts to nothing more than shareware.

A few years back, I wrote a high speed session manager for PHP. The session
server was GPL, but the interface library was LGPL, and the actual PHP
extension was signed over to the PHP guys.

这篇关于MySQL和许可混淆的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！