4 ms·

What turned me against GPL was mysql -- MySQL AB decided that shipping Mysql with a commercial product was a "violation" of GPL and thus we'd have to buy a comm

What turned me against GPL was mysql -- MySQL AB decided that shipping Mysql with a commercial product was a "violation" of GPL and thus we'd have to buy a commercial license. Their argument is essentially that you can't use mysql for a commercial product because if you do, you're "linking" to it and thus need a commercial license. If using a database as a database server doesn't count under the "work product" of a database, then what does? Thus, I have to assume that any company backing GPL software might eventually go that route, making it dangerous to my business to ever try to use it for a commercial product. That is a worry I don't want to have, and thus I use non-GPL open-source whenever I can. This is what the OP meant by "contaminated", and since many people don't like to use GPL code for this same reason, it is what lead him to call it "doomed to obscurity". Clearly hyperbole, but point taken.

jmillikin 17y ago
The GPL is a copyright license, based on existing copyright law and precedent. Yes, it is possible for a copyright holder to make absurd claims about the license, but to enforce it, they'd have to convince a lawyer to take the case and a judge to rule in their favor. For what it's worth, the GPL explicitly states that aggregation in that way does not imply that it's a derived work. MySQL (or Sun, or now Oracle) would be laughed out of court. Note also that using code licensed under the (for example) BSD or MIT license does not protect you from some loony suing you for copyright violation.
dangrossman 17y ago
There's no legal precedent for MySQL's argument that simply using their database is linking. There's not even legal precedent that linked code creates a derivative work.
- lolcraft 17y ago
  A disputed matter. No one is going to bet his business on that issue, when alternatives exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... But if you give it for free, neither Linus nor the FSF will lift a finger (like the NVIDIA drivers) ;)

jmillikin 17y ago

The GPL is a copyright license, based on existing copyright law and precedent. Yes, it is possible for a copyright holder to make absurd claims about the license, but to enforce it, they'd have to convince a lawyer to take the case and a judge to rule in their favor. For what it's worth, the GPL explicitly states that aggregation in that way does not imply that it's a derived work. MySQL (or Sun, or now Oracle) would be laughed out of court. Note also that using code licensed under the (for example) BSD or MIT license does not protect you from some loony suing you for copyright violation.

dangrossman 17y ago

There's no legal precedent for MySQL's argument that simply using their database is linking. There's not even legal precedent that linked code creates a derivative work.

lolcraft 17y ago
A disputed matter. No one is going to bet his business on that issue, when alternatives exist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Linking_and_derived_works http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License#Link... But if you give it for free, neither Linus nor the FSF will lift a finger (like the NVIDIA drivers) ;)