LWN: Comments on "MySQL and SAP"

MySQL and SAP - License change

khim — Thu, 05 Jun 2003 07:53:55 +0000

Unfortunatelly you are wrong. You can not link mysql client libraries in your application if it's not GPL-licensed - for example PHP: right now PHP includes it's own old version of libmysql and thus not in violation but if you'll link PHP and last version of libmysql from MySQL 4.1.x you'll be in violation of GPL. I do not think it was intent to make PHP unable to use recent versions of libmysql but that's what we have now!

MySQL and SAP - License change

zone — Fri, 30 May 2003 01:45:19 +0000

"Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software."

You are confusing the issues of using non-free software and bundling non-free software. You are not required to purchase a MySQL license to use non-free software "in connection" with MySQL; the GPL guarantees your right to do that. If you read the MySQL licensing policy, you'll see that you only need a commercial license when you _directly bundle_ MySQL with your non-GPL application, i.e. producing a non-free/semi-free application. You are free to distribute your non-GPL application for use with MySQL, as long as you don't include the MySQL server or a MySQL driver with it.

"While the FSF might consider Linux more free in that case, in practice, there would be no mainstream use of Linux under those licensing provisions."

Actually, the FSF would consider that _less_ free. It wouldn't really be Free if you could only use the software in conjunction with other free software.

MySQL and SAP - License change

komarek — Thu, 29 May 2003 21:22:50 +0000

"Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software."

You're mixing up usage restrictions and copyright. GPL is a copyright, and puts no restrictions on usage. Linux (the kernel) is GPL'd. And the new client libraries will also be GPL'd. Your "imagine" scenario is of course interesting to ponder, but bears no real relation to the MySQL/SAP client libs issue -- MySQL is putting the those client libs under the GPL, not the Microsoft EULA.

You may have a point, but you'll have to be more careful if you want to be convincing.

MySQL and SAP - License change

linuxbox — Thu, 29 May 2003 15:54:41 +0000

The number of comments questioning the license change is certainly more than a "handful." It's most of the traffic on the SAPDB general list, over the past 2 days.

And I think unilateral license changes of this type should be viewed with much more critical concern than this summary displays.

While good for MySQL AB, I suspect this change is harmful to most users of the software. The claim that MySQL's growth reflects the soundness of this licensing strategy (from the client/consumer viewpoint) is specious--because most commercial usrs of MySQL probably misunderstand the licensing, are in violation, and would not be using it if they realized they must by MySQL licenses.

Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software. While the FSF might consider Linux more free in that case, in practice, there would be no mainstream use of Linux under those licensing provisions.

The same reasoning applies to GPL licensing of client interfaces for a key infrastructure services like a client/server RDBMS. Even if those licenses are priced affordably today, there is _no_ way to predict the cost of the same licenses in the future. Hence the future value of commercial software linked with MySQL depends on the future behavior and ownership of one company--a company that could be sold, leave business, or change its practices in ways harmful to the users of its software.

I for one think of this as a bad-faith move from the commercial stewards of SAPDB.

MySQL and SAP

leandro — Thu, 29 May 2003 09:45:45 +0000

The big question is, which side will technically predominate?

Just like Compaq and Digital, this is a big question. In the older case, the Digital side initially got the technical upper hand, giving hopes to its users; later the Compaq side predominated as suits went the easier route to liquidation and the HP merger.

The paralel should be obvious: while none side in this merger can claim to be relational, MySQL isn't even a proper SQL, and barely a DBMS at all. Not only that, its main architects have repeatedly shown they don't grok data, but only programming.

So while one can't hope too much, given that SAPdb is only a SQL DBMSs trying to catch up with Oracle -- that is, they try to catch up with something that is not even up to SQL standards, much less relational ones --, yet SAPdb is clearly a full-featured DBMS. One would hope the MySQL people would concentrate in community relations and leave the technical stuff to SAP.

MySQL and SAP

jamesh — Thu, 29 May 2003 06:32:04 +0000

Unless I am mistaken, such a fork would not need to be for the entire SAP-DB product -- just the client library. Unless they plan to change the client-server protocol a lot, it shouldn't be a large burden to maintain an LGPL client library.