[Mono-devel-list] ByteFX development
tberman at off.net
Thu Sep 16 21:11:47 EDT 2004
It is all totally moot, as they have taken over development of ByteFX
and made it GPL.
Linking with that is whats important. Doesn't matter pure managed, blah
blah, whatever. The 'official' Mysql .NET client (formerly ByteFX) is
now GPL. You are free to continue development of the latest LGPL cvs
snapshot and keep it LGPL.
On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 18:39 -0600, Michael Torrie wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-09-16 at 18:06, Chris Morgan wrote:
> > > Please, correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that the licence of the
> > > MySql database only allows you to develop apps that are open source. If you
> > > are intending on selling/distributing a commercial product that uses MySql
> > > as the backend, then you are required you to purchase a comercial licence
> > > for MySql.
> > >
> > > Because of this, the LGPL version of ByteFX is only of any use to open
> > > source projects. If you want to sell a comercial product, you need to
> > > purchase the licence, which I guess will also include their commercial
> > > version of the GPL library that MySql provides.
> > >
> > > I think this might eliminate the need to develop the LGPL version if the
> > > main intent is that it can be use in commercial applications.
> > After some discussion on #mono it seems like MySql simply isn't being clear.
> > The ByteFX implementation is fully managed, it doesn't link to any mysql
> > libraries. From mysql's website:
> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/mysql/en/Using_the_MySQL_software_under_a_commercial_license.html
> > "When you distribute a non-GPL application that works only with the MySQL
> > software and ship it with the MySQL software. This type of solution is
> > considered to be linking even if it's done over a network."
> Linking against their libraries is one thing. Speaking their network
> protocol and still being forced to GPL is another. That's just plain
> bull. That may be what MySQL would want, but it's just not legal.
> That's not what the GPL says, and it certainly is against the spirit of
> the GPL as expressed by the FSF. Sounds like it is time for a new
> clause in the GPL to clarify this.
> Given this questionable interpretation of the GPL on their part, I will
> never use MySQL where I can help it. PostgreSQL seems to do the job
> just fine and is not encumbered by bizarre attempts at restriction.
> This is very microsoft-esque and I don't like it. Surely a network
> protcol can be reverse engineered for "interoperability."
> > That is the only questionable claim that they seem to make. It seems kind of
> > unreasonable to think that just the act of talking to a MySql database could
> > cause you to have to GPL your program. ByteFX would fall under this clause,
> > if the clause is even something that the GPL specifies.
> > Chris
> > _______________________________________________
> > Mono-devel-list mailing list
> > Mono-devel-list at lists.ximian.com
> > http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-devel-list
More information about the Mono-devel-list