An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.
An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.
Posted Jan 6, 2010 16:53 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792)In reply to: An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles. by dlang
Parent article: The ongoing MySQL campaign
Possibly so. The problem is that for the last decade MySQL Ab and then Sun would push the interpretation of the GPL in their favor. So for instance, they might say to a customer that if you ship an application together with MySQL server, and the application is also using MySQL specific SQL, it is a derivative of MySQL. I know, because I was one of them. You may not agree that that is the right way to interpret the GPL, but on the other hand that is not yet a guarantee that Oracle as the new owner of MySQL wouldn't sue such users. Given how MySQL Ab historically has interpreted its own copyright, it would be nice to have clarity on the topic, otherwise people can still be scared away from using MySQL, regardless of what the right interpretation is.
The other thing is that MySQL is used in various ways: as a client server, fully embedded in the application process (libmysqld), and as a framework for proprietary storage engines (which are .so libraries to MySQL server). The question is, do you want to solve the problem for all of those different MySQL customers, or just the client-server scenario.