PlanetMysql.ru – информация о СУБД MySQL

In my time at MySQL AB in the Community Relations possition (2004-2006) I wrote several articles on MySQL’s licensing for the MySQL web site. The core reason for having to explain anything was (and still is) the dual licensing of MySQL, in particular the client library. I left MySQL AB years ago, but people still ask me licensing questions. Below is an excerpt from one such question, and my response.

> Hi, Found a post on the mysql website from Arjen Lentz to do with the whole
> mysql licensing question.
> Do you know if the issue with, php scripts (that use a mysql database) issued
> under a proprietary license require you to have a commercial license for
> mysql, or will the issues be covered for the GPL version through the fact
> that the scripts run via php which in-turn connects to the GPL mysql server
> for which the FOSS exception applies.

Note: I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice.

The issue might be a bit fuzzy since you are actually dependent on MySQL server, whether or not you are “linking”. So the linkage could be there anyway (there’s no consensus on this interpretation of “linking”, it is however the viewpoint of some – hence the fuzzyness).

My recommendation to you would be to not fuss with any nasty licensing for the PHP code you create for clients. While this provides the client with more freedom, you are the expert and thus the first choice for any support and future development. Providing clients with freedom tends to bind them more to you, while restrictions tend to make them look around for alternatives.

Your clients are in whatever business they’re in, which is probably not PHP code development; it’s not in their interest to go spend time on that or undermining you, unless you were to provide bad service.

If you approach your software in this way with your clients, you can generally GPL it and do equal or better business while not having to worry about nettly licensing questions. You don’t want to base your business on a legal argument, as you just don’t want the question to get raised to begin with… it’d be costly and distracting (if not destructive).

Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL, unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.

$ bzr annotate --long --all  sql/net_serv.cc |  head -n 24 |tail -n 9
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 | /**                   
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 |   @file
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 | 
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   This file is the net layer API for the MySQL client/server protocol,
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   which is a tightly coupled, proprietary protocol owned by MySQL AB.
2476.648.3   cmiller@xxxxx   20071011 |   @note
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 |   unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
1616.1722.3  joerg@xxxxx     20050307 | 

$ bzr branch -r tag:mysql-4.1.2 lp:mysql-server/5.1 branch4.1.2
$ cd branch4.1.2
$ bzr annotate --long --all  sql/net_serv.cc |  head -n 24 |tail -n 9
2           bk@xxxxxxx  20000731 |                             
1098.3.1    monty@xxxx  20020723 | /*
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   This file is the net layer API for the MySQL client/server protocol,
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   which is a tightly coupled, proprietary protocol owned by MySQL AB.
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   Any re-implementations of this protocol must also be under GPL
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 |   unless one has got an license from MySQL AB stating otherwise.
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | */
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | 
1538.19.1   monty@xxxx  20030604 | /*

$bzr log -r 1538.19.1
------------------------------------------------------------
revno: 1538.19.1
committer: monty@xxxx
timestamp: Wed 2003-06-04 18:28:51 +0300

Topics for this podcast:

*Matt Asay moves from Alfresco to Canonical
*GPL fade fuels heated discussion
*Apple’s iPad and its enterprise and open source impact
*Open source in data warehousing and storage
*Our perspective on Oracle’s plans for Sun open source

iTunes or direct download (32:50, 9.2 MB)

We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift, according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard. Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given where open source is going these days.

I believe the emerging trend away from GPL and toward more permissive, mixable licenses such as LGPL or Apache reflects the broadening out of open source software not only throughout the enterprise IT software stack, but also throughout uses beyond individual applications, frameworks and systems. More and more open source software vendors are pursuing opportunities in embedded use or OEM deals whereby open source software often must sit alongside or even inside of proprietary code and products. Similar to what we’ve seen in the mobile space — where open source software and development are more prominent than ever, but end products with accessible code are not — open source is broadening out, but it is doing so in many cases by integrating with proprietary code.

We also see some debate about the community and commercial ups and downs of GPL as organizations contemplate the balance of the two and the best way to achieve commercial success with open source software. As Matt highlights, we are seeing a choice of non-GPL licensing in order to more effectively foster community and third-party involvement, but we also continue to see GPL as a top choice to similarly build community.

While the debate about community versus commercial benefit may not necessarily be prompting movement away from GPL, I believe another recent action may indeed do so. The latest series of GPL lawsuits are aimed at raising awareness, profile and legitimacy for open source software. While those bringing the suits — primarily the Software Freedom Law Center — have exhibited a reasonable approach and settled with past lawsuit targets, these suits and publicity may still serve to steer organizations making the choice to other licenses, including the LGPL, BSD, Apache and the Eclipse Public License.

Another factor is the GPL thumping that took place during the SaveMySQL campaign as the European Commission contemplated Oracle’s proposed (and now closed) acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the open source MySQL. I voiced my concern that the SaveMySQL campaign might jeopardize or de-value open source software projects and pieces in M&A, but I believe I’m actually in agreement with SaveMySQL leader Monty Widenius that the deal and process may end up tarnishing the GPL and its reputation in the enterprise.

As stated above, much of the movement we’re seeing away from the GPL has to do with the desire and opportunity to place open source software alongside, within, on top of or otherwise with proprietary software. Non-GPL open source licenses are also more flexible in terms of integrating and bundling with other open source software licensed under other, non-GPL licenses.

We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers — Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL — rising while GPL dominance wanes. We’re also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments.

Topics for this podcast:

*Open source in consumer devices
*VMware-Zimbra deal highlights open source, cloud
*A capitalist’s guide to open source licensing
*Latest on Oracle-Sun-MySQL, M&A implications

iTunes or direct download (24:48, 5.7 MB)

Topics for this podcast:

*Open source in consumer devices
*VMware-Zimbra deal highlights open source, cloud
*A capitalist’s guide to open source licensing
*Latest on Oracle-Sun-MySQL, M&A implications

iTunes or direct download (24:48, 5.7 MB)

Having been a free software user and supporter for many years, I am disheartened by some of the comments made in the MySQL/Oracle debate regarding the GNU Public License (GPL) and other licenses. There is much throwing around of misconceptions and untruths about licenses and their differences. In this blog, I shall take on some of the bigger misconceptions.

While Linux is indeed distributed under the GPL, as is MySQL, Linux has an exception that allows anyone to run any kind of applications (including closed source applications) on top of Linux.

Monty says: Help keep the Internet free

There is nothing in the GPL that forbids running closed source applications on top of GPL-licensed software. The only thing that GPL has in this regard is that if you make changes to GPL-licensed software and re-distribute it as a binary, then you must make the modified source code available. This is the reason why commercial Linux distributions make available their source code, either online (as Red Hat does) or on the demand of those who purchase copies (à la SUSE). It is also the reason why there are many commercial software products running on Linux, such as the Oracle Database Server, MATLAB, etc., etc.

I think that GPL is a great open source license, in many cases the best license. The GPL license ensures freedom of the code and at the same time gives the copyright holder a very strong control on the code and it’s ecosystem, especially it’s closed source customers.¹

Monty says: Help keep the Internet free

This is another contradiction. How does the GPL give the copyright owner strong control over its closed source customers? In fact, the rules of GPL mandate that any closed source customer is able to obtain a copy of the source code for their closed source version. Furthermore, that customer is then able to release the source code to anyone, and if they want to, sell their own version. So in fact, with the GPL there is no way to control their closed source customers.

Currently, anyone can take the MySQL source code and make changes to it, as Percona and Monty AB currently do. If, however, they decide to sell a closed source copy, they must also provide the source if asked to do so–as the GPL enforces.

Oracle should change the license of MySQL to a more permissive Open Source license that would ensure that if Oracle would try to kill MySQL, the community would be able to take over and rescue MySQL and develop it as a product that can be freely used by everyone.

Monty says: Help keep the Internet free

The fact that it is GPL-licensed means that anyone fork it and create their own version, as Percona and Monty AB have done, regardless of whether Oracle kills it or does not. So what would releasing MySQL under a more permissive Open Source license (such as the Apache Software License or the BSD license) give the community?

Nothing, I believe. It would give anyone the freedom to take MySQL, make changes to it, and sell it as a closed source product, without having to share the source. And that sounds to me like a much better way to control one’s closed source customers than the GPL.

So, a change of license would benefit only those who want to produce and sell a modified version of MySQL and sell it without the obligation to give away the source code.

1. I understand “closed source customer” to be mean one that has purchased a binary copy. back

Topics for this podcast:

*2009 review and 2010 preview
*New CAOS survey and report – Climate Change
*Ups and downs in new round of GPL lawsuits
*Oracle-Sun-MySQL saga continues

iTunes or direct download (30:00, 6.9 MB)

The attendees were not satisfied with the first answer RMS gave to Brian, that Harish Pillay (Chief Technical Architect, Red Hat Singapore), chose to ask RMS what more he had to say, with regards to the letter he’d written. He answered quite candidly in this video, which Brian chimed in for as well.

The back channel for all this was Twitter… Don’t hesitate to follow @harishpillay, @brianaker, @piawaugh or even @webmink (Simon Phipps, while not at the event, was available on Twitter). Some interesting reading, naturally.