MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online) [LWN.net]

Business Review Online covers plans by MySQL AB to delay the move to the GPLv3 license. "Heres an announcement that almost got drowned out by festive cheer: MySQL has changed the license it uses for its open source database management system to avoid being forced to move to the forthcoming GPL v3. Kaj Arno, MySQL VP of community relations, revealed the license change on his blog, on December 22, noting that the license for MySQL 5.0 and 5.1 had changed from "GPLv2 or later" to "GPLv2 only". As he explained, this was in order to make it an option, not an obligation for the company to move to GPLv3." (Thanks to Francesco P. Lovergine.)

to post comments

Better to get it straight from the horse's mouth

Posted Jan 4, 2007 18:04 UTC (Thu) by stevenj (guest, #421) [Link]

See Kaj Arnö's blog:

MySQL has been part of the GPLv3 Committee B advising FSF since the GPLv3 draft was announced in January 2006. For GPLv3, we have seen fantastic improvements and hope for GPLv3 to spread. Even though my activity level as co-chair for Committee B was by far higher in the spring than what it has been in the past few months, MySQL AB continues to work with the FSF for GPLv3 to be the new, widespread license under which Free Software is licensed. However, now, until we get clear and strong indications for the general acceptance of GPLv3 over GPLv2, we feel comfortable with a specific GPLv2 reference in our license. [emphasis his]

This seems similar to Sun's decision to release Java under GPLv2. Since both Sun and MySQL are the sole copyright holders for their respective products, they don't need the "or any later version" to upgrade the license (unlike most GPL projects). Thus, they have the luxury of waiting until the final GPLv3 is released in order to assess licensing changes.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 5, 2007 0:07 UTC (Fri) by jeroen (guest, #12372) [Link] (10 responses)

I don't really understand why they are talking about "being forced to GPLv3". They could keep the code under "GPLv2 or later" as long as they want, even years after the GPLv3 is released.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 5, 2007 2:00 UTC (Fri) by emkey (guest, #144) [Link] (4 responses)

Aren't they essentially drawing a line in the sand and saying "no version of MySQL beyond this one can be made GPL V3 without our permission"?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but can't anyone fork MySQL prior to this change and make the fork GPL V3?

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 5, 2007 2:08 UTC (Fri) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

that matches what I read.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 7, 2007 11:59 UTC (Sun) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link] (2 responses)

[Aren't they essentially drawing a line in the sand and saying "no version of MySQL beyond this one can be made GPL V3 without our permission"?]

Sounds about right. The problem is that the line about not wanting to be forced to go to GPLv3 sounds like hogwash. What they are doing instead is preventing users from choosing to go to GPLv3 for new releases.

Even without the change, no one could have forced them to go to GPLv3. (If I have this wrong, please explain it to me.)

all the best,

drew

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 8, 2007 10:47 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

They've always required that contributers assign them the copyright of the code they are willing to accept into MySQL.

So if they are taking a adversarial approach...
It would make sense if they are afraid that somebody will fork it under licensing religious convictions and that fork gain steam. If this is true then their position is weakened somewhat by the fact that somebody can fork a previous version... but it will still have some effect non-the-less.

But that is still strange to me. Forks based on religious convictions probably don't have a long shelf life... especially when the fork ceases to be compatable.

The only thing that realy makes sense is if they just aren't thinking very clearly (which is something that is as likely as anything) or they are doing it in order to avoid flamewars.

Because realy.. they control the copyright. Weither or not it's GPL3 compatable or not is realy irrelevent. Mysterious. It doesn't make sense no matter how I look at it. Why would they sacrifice license compatability?

Maybe it's realated to Patent stuff? What patents do they license from other people or own themselves? That could make sense if that is a issue with them currently and it is not something they are going to talk about in public.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 9, 2007 13:45 UTC (Tue) by zotz (guest, #26117) [Link]

"Maybe it's realated to Patent stuff?"

That is an interesting thought that had not occurred to me up to now.

I will have to chew on that and the possibilities it raises.

So far I had:

1. Not thinking clearly, not understanding the license.
2. Publicity. (Why? Dangerous?)
3. Political statement. (Aimed at FSF?)
4. Desire to limit users options. (Why? For control purposes?)
5. Leverage to use in molding GPLv3. (Possible?)

Can you add any others?

all the best,

drew

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 7, 2007 2:12 UTC (Sun) by philips (guest, #937) [Link] (4 responses)

That's the question I always wanted to ask FSF: how they intend to support that "GPLv2 or later" line in their own software. It all boils down to the fact that GPLv2 and GPLv3 are incompatible - in both wording and spirit.

Patent/DRM claims would apply if "GPLv2 or later" is interpreted as "GPLv3" - but otherwise they are out.

Uhm... I'm confused again. GPLv2 doesn't limit you on patents and DRM, but GPLv3 does. So what really "GPLv2 or later" would really mean then? You go to court to resolve a dispute. Defendant claims he is under GPLv2 since it is only "or later", but plaintiff claims he is under GPLv3 - since it is "later" too.

P.S. I still think that FSF should have introed new license and left GPL as it is: open only for minor modifications/corrections. GPLv3 really needs to be AGPL - "Another General Public License".

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 7, 2007 9:37 UTC (Sun) by fyodor (guest, #3481) [Link]

Users of "GPLv2 or later" software will have the choice of using the software under either license. So if they choose to continue using it under the GPLv2, any GPLv3 DRM restrictions won't apply to them. However, the FSF owns the copyright for their projects (they are very strict about obtaining assignments from contributors) and I expect them to change much of their software to "GPLv3 or later" once that license is released. At that point, companies will either have to comply with the GPLv3 restrictions or use (and possibly fork) previous GPLv2 releases.

-Fyodor
Insecure.Org

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 7, 2007 23:39 UTC (Sun) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (2 responses)

Patent/DRM claims would apply if "GPLv2 or later" is interpreted as "GPLv3" - but otherwise they are out.

Please try to read facts before talking gibberish. "GPLv2 or later" is exactly "GPLv2 or later", not more, not less. No patent/DRM/etc claims. Always was so, always will be so. Just like you can always use gcc 1.42 according to conditions of GPLv1 (and FSF even helpfully provides download even right now!)... Now the NEW stuff can be licensed "GPLv3 or later" and it can be combined with "GPLv2 or later" older stuff. Then GPLv3 will apply to the whole thing (you can not distribute the whole thing under GPLv2 since GPLv2 does not allow this), but of course even after that you still can pull parts "GPLv2 or later" and use them accordingly.

FSF explicitly made it possible for author to stop this (usually desirable) upgradeability - it's not part of license, it's part of grant text! Linus used this since he decided that he does not trust FSF, you can use this - if you care. You can always remove "or later" - it's easy to do so, it was designed this way. You can not easily add such a clause as Linus pointed out (thus painting the whole kernel in the legal hole - hopefully when the situation will blow up we'll have something to replace Linux), so it's better to keep choices open...

This is really confuses me: everyone complains that FSF is "totally evil" when it offers choice (to upgrade or not), but nobody complains when MPL or EPL effectively removes such choice: once you've distributed something under MPL, EPL or any such license you have effectively no way to control if you want to upgrade or not - it's part of license not part of your grant text.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 8, 2007 22:11 UTC (Mon) by drag (guest, #31333) [Link] (1 responses)

""hopefully when the situation will blow up we'll have something to replace Linux""

Well if that unfortunately happens then we always have OpenSolaris which seems to be leaning towards GPLv3.

Probably if you want a project to go GPLv3 it would be worth your time to work out a 'GPLv2 exception' so that projects based on GPLv2-only can use your code a bit and link against it.

That way although it will weaken your standing against DRM and such it will help foster good faith among projects and probably make a licensing decision easier.

This will be a stepping stone for later on when people are used to the idea of GPLv3 and realise that it's fine with little to no practical problems in real life use then you can go GPLv3 pure.

And if there ends up being severe problems with GPLv3 then it can give you a avenue to pull back out of it.

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 9, 2007 16:21 UTC (Tue) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link]

OpenSolaris is leaning towards GPLv3?

Oh dear, poor old Joerg must be having a fit ;)

MySQL changes license to avoid GPLv3 (Business Review Online)

Posted Jan 11, 2007 12:58 UTC (Thu) by nim-nim (subscriber, #34454) [Link]

The title is of course highly misleading, and hints MySQL AB is one of the GPL v3 opponents (which is very far from the truth)