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
>
Did you even bother to look at that page yourself? It clearly says
exactly what I said up there. If your code is available free of change
as open source, then and only then, you and the users of your code are
free from license fees. In any other case you have to buy or keep your
stuff for yourself. Special restrictions apply to any changes you might
want to make to it, and so on and so forth.
Free to me means a little more than "currently free of charge under
certain restrictions that are subject to change under our discretion".
And the latter is how I read the MySQL license explanations, but IANAL.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #