Subject: Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic) - msg#00006

Previous Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)

Christian, May want to as MySQL/Matt Fredrickson, What parts of the GPL covers the requirement of an ASP providing a service to require a commercial license since there is no distribution of code? Edward Christian Cryder <christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> 06/01/2005 08:44 AM Please respond to christian.cryder                 To:        barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx         cc:                 Subject:        Re: Fw: [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi off topic) Just an FYI... Here's the response I got from the MySQL guys. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt Fredrickson <matthew@xxxxxxxxx> Date: May 18, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: MySQL Inquiry To: "c.s.cryder@xxxxxxxxx" <c.s.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Christian, Thank you for your interest in MySQL.  If you are an ASP and your application is not open source, we will need to arrange some sort of arrangement.  Do you pay you a service or subscription fee?  How is that structured? If you are not an ASP and you are simply letting the public access your website, licensing is not required and you are fine with the GPL. Sincerely, Matt Fredrickson -------------------------------------------------------------------- So from their perspective, if you are an ASP (which we consider ourselves to be), you must either GPL your app -OR- pay them a license fee. Since we aren't inclined to do either of those, MySQL won't be an option for us. What is not clear to me is how they are reading the GPL to arrive at this conclusion. What is clear to me is that they evidently feel they have a legal basis for their position, so it seems fairly risky (to me) to simply bank on my own interpretation of the license here. If this is in fact the case, it would seem to have significant implications for any ASP models using GPL code - what they seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter whether you extend or even redistribute the code (we don't do either). What matters is that you are "a for-profit business is using the code in a centrally hosted application which their customers can access." Anyway, just thought I'd share our findings... Christian Edward.Tak@xxxxxx wrote: Hi Christian, 1.  If you are not distributing GPL code, you have no GPL issues (But see #4 below)        From the http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, Section 0, Paragraph 2:        Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they        are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program        is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made        by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. 2.   Internal distribution is NOT distribution        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution        Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?                    No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence,                a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version                through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.                    However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution.                In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.      Even if not, you only have to provide the source to the people who has obtained the executable.        They can't ask for the source if they don't have the exe.        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIDemandACopy        If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?            No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so.            He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses 3.  There were some issue about the output of the application        FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL        In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?           Only when the program copies part of itself into the output. 4.  Here is where you may be in trouble....  It says you are ok.  but in the next paragraph it says you may not be.....        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnreleasedMods        A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?            The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.            What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.            It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately,             without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine             for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the            source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in            GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.            In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use. All of the above is really a secondary question.   The real question is does you program come under the GPL just because you use the MySql jdbc driver. Under the GPL, If your program uses a GPL library, then your program becomes subject to the GPL  (the reason for the LGPL, the Lesser GPL) A.  So the driver is under the GPL.  If I make changes to the driver, I have to release the changes to the driver. B.  If I use the driver, Is that like linking to the library? and comes under the GPL. C.  Driver is not a library, and so my application is not subject to the GPL. So back to the GPL FAQ's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCNFUseGPLPlugins Seems to suggest that only way option C would apply is if an exec or fork is used to access/invoke the driver Finally, given that MySQL went through the effort to change their Driver license from LGPL to GPL (to "more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial license ") would suggest that the applications would come under the GPL        http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html        Previously, the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the LGPL (the Lesser General Public License)        and now they use the GPL (the General Public License). What prompted this change?        MySQL's goal is to provide all its software under a free software/open source license. The change from the        LGPL to the GPL for the client libraries was made in 2001 during the development of MySQL 4.0 to help MySQL AB        more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial license ... In Conclusion, My opinion (I'm not a lawyer) is that if you use the MySQL driver, your application becomes subject to the GPL license. Given that the Barracuda is under the LGPL, no real issues with the application. So only issue is #4 above....  Using the application on a public web site **MIGHT** be considered distribution in the future ... Edward Christian Cryder <christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> 05/13/2005 11:54 AM Please respond to christian.cryder                To:        BarracudaMVC <barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>        cc:                Subject:        [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi off topic) Hey, I am researching open source db's on Linux right now, looking primarily at Postgress (BSD) vs. MySQL (GPL), and I am just wondering about licensing issues. My understanding is that if you are simply _using_ a GPL'd product (like a db), rather than actually modiying or bundling it, GPL wouldn't apply to your code. But the MySQL site seems kind of ambiguous in how they describe it. So to put it specfically - proprietary server based applications (ie. vertical solutions) that use Barracuda, Tomcat, etc. and simply store/retrieve data in a GPL DB would NOT be subject to GPL. Right? Anyone know of any resources out there that would explicitly confirm (or deny!) that understanding? -- Christian Christian Cryder Internet Architect, ATMReports.com "Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today" http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com -- Christian Christian Cryder Internet Architect, ATMReports.com "Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today" http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com

Next Message by Date: click to view message preview

Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)

Jacob wrote: I may be way off conceptually (this is really just a shot in the dark), but the idea is that this is not a question of interpretation of the GPL.  It's a matter of which licence has been applied.  Let me try to explain this with an exampl --------------------- It is a question of interpretation of the GPL.  It is licensed under the GPL.  That is explicit at their site. You an do anything you want under the terms of the GPL. If you don't want to abide by the GPL, they will give you a different option, a commercial license. How MySQL is interperting the GPL is suspect.....  It is in their right to release it under a difference license (assuming that they own the copyright to ALL the code) that explicitly states that commerical ASPs needs to get a commercial license.  But the GPL does not say that. Then again, you did say that it was a shot in the dark.. :-) Edward

Previous Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)

> For Linux, "User Space" applications that use standard API's does not > come under the GPL. JDBC is a standard API. The MySQL driver is just an implementation, but you shouldn't have to change a single statement in your code when switching from a MySQL driver to for example a PostgreSQL driver. My take is thus that the program doesn't depend on the driver - it depends on/is linked against the JDBC API. > A potential /bad/Not in good faith/Against the spirit of the license > solution would be to write a middleware application/WebService that > uses the MySQL driver and open source that. > Your application can communicate with the WebService bypassing the GPL > issue with MySQL Client. Hibernate (http://www.hibernate.org/196.html) would be an example of such middleware, right? So as long as Hibernate's LGPL license is compatible with MySQL's GPL license (which I assume it is), your program will only be subject to the LGPL, not GPL. Problem solved? -- Martin Lie Edward.Tak@xxxxxx wrote: > Hi, > > Regarding the difference between Using MySQL and Linux. > > For Linux, "User Space" applications that use standard API's does not > come under the GPL. > According to Linus Torvalds (http://kerneltrap.org/node/1735) , all > modules do come under the GPL because it uses detailed Linux internal > calls and comes under the "linking with libraries" > So you can use Linux and and run commercial applications without GPL > issues. > Binary only modules are kind of in the Gray area of the license but > Linus believes that binary only modules are a violation of the GPL. > > > MySQL is a little bit different. MySQL consists of two components > (The client driver software, and the Server software) > > It is clear, there are no issues with the MySQL server part. You can > run the server any way you want (Running is specifically excluded > from the GPL license) > as long as you are not modifying it, or imbedding the server into your > application. > > The issue you have is with the MySQL client driver. If you link > (dynamically or statically) with the driver, then your application > comes under the GPL. > > So the clarification you need to get from the GPL folks as > recommended by MySQL is > "Is providing a ASP type service using software linked with GPL > libraries considered an activity of distributing". > ** It is clear that copying and modifying and not distributing > satisfies the GPL (no violation) > > Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are > not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of > running the Program is not restricted" > > > A potential /bad/Not in good faith/Against the spirit of the license > solution would be to write a middleware application/WebService that > uses the MySQL driver and open source that. > Your application can communicate with the WebService bypassing the GPL > issue with MySQL Client. > > Thanks, > Edward > > > > > > > Christian Cryder <christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> > 06/02/2005 07:44 AM > Please respond to christian.cryder > > To: barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx > cc: > Subject: Re: Fw: [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi > off topic) > > > Just thought I'd pass along the rest of my discussion w/ the MySQL > folks, so you can see how it ended. Interesting, to say the least. > Thanks for all the input and insight in the previous responses... > > Christian > > > Matt Fredrickson wrote: > Christian, > > We are not the experts of the GPL licenese and there are many > scenarios and business cases that can fall under the GPL. I suggest > that you talk to the GPL folks to see if what you are doing falls > under the GPL (they are the experts on the GPL license). If they > agree that your usage falls under the GPL, you are absolutely fine > using MySQL. > > Kind regards, > > Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Cryder [mailto:christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 1:42 PM > To: matthew@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: MySQL Inquiry] > > Sure. We have customers who are in a contractual arrangement with us > (details of those contracts aren't pertinent to this discussion). > They do not pay any fee to use our software; our software is free for > all our customers. They access it via a web interface. The software > runs entirely on our own internal servers. We do not resell or > redistribute our software code. Any GPL libraries we use are "as is" > - we don't modify them. > > That's basically it. > > Christian > > > Matt Fredrickson wrote: > Can you tell me more about your ASP model? Do you charge your > customers a monthly or yearly fee? I may need to run your scenario > past our legal department for a better explaination from MySQL. > > Regards, > > Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Cryder [mailto:christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:52 AM > To: matthew@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: MySQL Inquiry] > > Matt Fredrickson wrote: > My apologies, you could use MySQL under the GPL license as long as > your application is open source. > No, our application is not open source (which I was clear to state). > We follow an ASP model, the code we write simply runs on our servers, > and it may _use_ some GPL software (ie. Linux, other 3rd party GPL > libraries, etc), but it does not modify or distribute them. It simply > runs them. > > Now, from the GPL verbiage at http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html, I > see this: "Activities other than copying, distribution and > modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its > scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted" > > So just to be clear, all we are talking about is _running_ a GPL > program on our own servers. We have a webapplication that uses > various libraries (some GPL) as it handles user requests and > generates web pages for them to view. But we never _copy, distribute, > or modify_ any of the GPL code. > > So the question remains - why can I not use the GPL version of your > software? I'm asking for a specific explanation based on the GPL > license: why would my being an ASP have _anything_ to do with whether > or not I can use the GPL version of your software? > > I really need to get a clear, solid answer here (otherwise there is > no way I'll ever be able to convince anyone here to even consider > MySQL). > > Thanks much, > Christian > > > Regards, > > Matt > -----Original Message----- > From: Christian Cryder [mailto:christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx] > Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2005 11:25 AM > To: matthew@xxxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: [Fwd: Fwd: MySQL Inquiry] > > Hi Matt, > > Sorry if I'm being obtuse here, but I'm not sure I'm following your > answers. If the GPL has nothing to do with my being an ASP, then why > would my being an ASP prevent me from using MySQL under its GPL > license? > > Thanks for clarifying, > Christian > > > On 6/1/05, Matt Fredrickson <matthew@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I have a followup question (because I know I'm going to get asked > this by my peers here). Could you explain to me how the GPL has > anything to do with us being an ASP? > It does not. > > In other words, what part of the GPL distinguishes between whether a > webapp on our servers is being accessed internally (from local > network) vs. externally (via our clients)? Wouldn't we run into the > exact same issue simply by using Linux servers (after all, Linux is > GPL too)? > From my understanding, with the GPL, it does not matter if it is being > accessed internally or externally (e.g. intranet versus public > website). > > Regards, > > Matt -- Barracuda mailing list Barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://www.objectweb.org/wws/lists/projects/barracuda

Next Message by Thread: click to view message preview

Re: Fw: Question about GPL (semi off topic)

Here is my take.  Again, I'm not a lawyer.... Let's assume that "By using the MySql driver, your app comes under the GPL so you need to abide by the license." Then they are saying     1.  You can GPL your code, in which case you are fulfilling the GPL license.     2.  If you are giving away your services for free, then they are giving you an exception.  (not specified in the licensing page and not specified as part of the GPL)     3.  If you don't want to GPL your code, and you are charging money for the service,           then they are willing to sell you a license to the MySQL libraries and application under a "non-GPL" license.          (They can do this if they own the copyright to all the code - rewrote contributions or received an assignment of copyright for contributed code)    Is option 3 above still open source?  Yes it is.  With the license you purchase, you will get the source as well....    So comes the "Free as in speech, not free as in beer" .....      You can get the code (Freedom to modify to your liking)   But it's not free ( costs money to get beer). Edward Christian Cryder <christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> 06/01/2005 08:44 AM Please respond to christian.cryder                 To:        barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx         cc:                 Subject:        Re: Fw: [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi off topic) Just an FYI... Here's the response I got from the MySQL guys. -------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Matt Fredrickson <matthew@xxxxxxxxx> Date: May 18, 2005 4:12 PM Subject: MySQL Inquiry To: "c.s.cryder@xxxxxxxxx" <c.s.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> Hi Christian, Thank you for your interest in MySQL.  If you are an ASP and your application is not open source, we will need to arrange some sort of arrangement.  Do you pay you a service or subscription fee?  How is that structured? If you are not an ASP and you are simply letting the public access your website, licensing is not required and you are fine with the GPL. Sincerely, Matt Fredrickson -------------------------------------------------------------------- So from their perspective, if you are an ASP (which we consider ourselves to be), you must either GPL your app -OR- pay them a license fee. Since we aren't inclined to do either of those, MySQL won't be an option for us. What is not clear to me is how they are reading the GPL to arrive at this conclusion. What is clear to me is that they evidently feel they have a legal basis for their position, so it seems fairly risky (to me) to simply bank on my own interpretation of the license here. If this is in fact the case, it would seem to have significant implications for any ASP models using GPL code - what they seem to be saying is that it doesn't matter whether you extend or even redistribute the code (we don't do either). What matters is that you are "a for-profit business is using the code in a centrally hosted application which their customers can access." Anyway, just thought I'd share our findings... Christian Edward.Tak@xxxxxx wrote: Hi Christian, 1.  If you are not distributing GPL code, you have no GPL issues (But see #4 below)        From the http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html, Section 0, Paragraph 2:        Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they        are outside its scope. The act of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program        is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the Program (independent of having been made        by running the Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does. 2.   Internal distribution is NOT distribution        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCInternalDistribution        Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?                    No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence,                a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version                through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders.                    However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution.                In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.      Even if not, you only have to provide the source to the people who has obtained the executable.        They can't ask for the source if they don't have the exe.        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCCanIDemandACopy        If I know someone has a copy of a GPL-covered program, can I demand he give me a copy?            No. The GPL gives him permission to make and redistribute copies of the program if he chooses to do so.            He also has the right not to redistribute the program, if that is what he chooses 3.  There were some issue about the output of the application        FAQ: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCWhatCaseIsOutputGPL        In what cases is the output of a GPL program covered by the GPL too?           Only when the program copies part of itself into the output. 4.  Here is where you may be in trouble....  It says you are ok.  but in the next paragraph it says you may not be.....        http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCUnreleasedMods        A company is running a modified version of a GPL'ed program on a web site. Does the GPL say they must release their modified sources?            The GPL permits anyone to make a modified version and use it without ever distributing it to others.            What this company is doing is a special case of that. Therefore, the company does not have to release the modified sources.            It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately,             without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine             for the public to talk to is hardly "private" use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the            source code in that special case. We are thinking about doing something like this in            GPL version 3, but we don't have precise wording in mind yet.            In the mean time, you might want to use the Affero GPL for programs designed for network server use. All of the above is really a secondary question.   The real question is does you program come under the GPL just because you use the MySql jdbc driver. Under the GPL, If your program uses a GPL library, then your program becomes subject to the GPL  (the reason for the LGPL, the Lesser GPL) A.  So the driver is under the GPL.  If I make changes to the driver, I have to release the changes to the driver. B.  If I use the driver, Is that like linking to the library? and comes under the GPL. C.  Driver is not a library, and so my application is not subject to the GPL. So back to the GPL FAQ's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCGPLPluginsInNF http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCNFUseGPLPlugins Seems to suggest that only way option C would apply is if an exec or fork is used to access/invoke the driver Finally, given that MySQL went through the effort to change their Driver license from LGPL to GPL (to "more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial license ") would suggest that the applications would come under the GPL        http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/faq.html        Previously, the MySQL client libraries were licensed under the LGPL (the Lesser General Public License)        and now they use the GPL (the General Public License). What prompted this change?        MySQL's goal is to provide all its software under a free software/open source license. The change from the        LGPL to the GPL for the client libraries was made in 2001 during the development of MySQL 4.0 to help MySQL AB        more easily differentiate between a proprietary user who should buy a commercial license ... In Conclusion, My opinion (I'm not a lawyer) is that if you use the MySQL driver, your application becomes subject to the GPL license. Given that the Barracuda is under the LGPL, no real issues with the application. So only issue is #4 above....  Using the application on a public web site **MIGHT** be considered distribution in the future ... Edward Christian Cryder <christian.cryder@xxxxxxxxx> 05/13/2005 11:54 AM Please respond to christian.cryder                To:        BarracudaMVC <barracuda@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>        cc:                Subject:        [barracuda] Question about GPL (semi off topic) Hey, I am researching open source db's on Linux right now, looking primarily at Postgress (BSD) vs. MySQL (GPL), and I am just wondering about licensing issues. My understanding is that if you are simply _using_ a GPL'd product (like a db), rather than actually modiying or bundling it, GPL wouldn't apply to your code. But the MySQL site seems kind of ambiguous in how they describe it. So to put it specfically - proprietary server based applications (ie. vertical solutions) that use Barracuda, Tomcat, etc. and simply store/retrieve data in a GPL DB would NOT be subject to GPL. Right? Anyone know of any resources out there that would explicitly confirm (or deny!) that understanding? -- Christian Christian Cryder Internet Architect, ATMReports.com "Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today" http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com -- Christian Christian Cryder Internet Architect, ATMReports.com "Coffee? I could quit anytime, just not today" http://seelifedifferently.blogspot.com