Scott Marlowe wrote:
>On Tue, 2005-03-08 at 09:06, Shelby Cain wrote:
>
>
>>--- Howard Cole <howard.cole@selestial.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Although not appropriate for a speed comparison, you
>>>might want to note
>>>that the use of Mysql versions 4.0 upward now
>>>require commercial license
>>>for clients, which are no longer LGPL, whereas
>>>Postgres is free (BSD
>>>license). This makes transactions per dollar an
>>>interesting statistic
>>>when comparing the Postgres and MySql!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Reading over their site that doesn't appear true for
>>every case. The client libraries are under the GPL
>>and thus any application that links to them would also
>>be covered under the GPL. No commercial license is
>>required unless the terms of the GPL (ie: if you
>>distribute a binary to someone you must also be
>>willing to distribute your source code if asked) a
>>problem.
>>
>>
>
>There have been some statements from MySQL in the past that implied they
>might be taking a narrower view of what "distribution" meant than what
>the GPL was saying. Also, it was impossible for PHP to be packaged with
>MySQL libs due to incompatibilities with the GPL'd mysql connection
>libs. It seems MySQL AB has clarified both on these pages:
>
>http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/
>http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html
>http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html
>
>
The real issue is that the GPL requires that derivative works are also
covered under the GPL or compatible license. IANAL, but I don't think
anyone in their right mind wants to ask the courts whether a work which
might or might not be (f. ex. links to a GPL'd library) is a derivative
work.
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers
Metatron Technology Consulting