Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
PHP Programming Upgrades Your Rights Online

MySQL Writes Exception for PHP in License 313

Posted by CowboyNeal from the cool-with-us dept.
ryanjensen writes "According to an article on News.com, MySQL wrote an exception into its license to allow PHP to use its libraries. From the article: 'Because MySQL owns copyright to all the MySQL code, it can include additional license provisions to its software. The new provision, called the Free and Open Source Software License Exception, enables people to use MySQL client libraries with other open-source projects under other open-source licenses other than the GPL.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySQL Writes Exception for PHP in License More

MySQL Writes Exception for PHP in License

Comments Filter:

  • A response to X? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TwistedSpring ( 594284 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:12AM (#8551517) Homepage
    This is good news for all those PHP kids out there. It is nice to see some licenses being made specifically more lenient, and I don't doubt this has had something to do with the recent change in the XFree86 license and how people reacted to that. Well done MySQL, your domination is secured :)

  • Quid pro quo (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Space cowboy ( 13680 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:13AM (#8551531) Journal
    Or, in this case no quids were involved (a quid is UK slang for a British pound...)

    It restores my faith in people when something like this happens - MySQL and PHP are the joint foundations on which a huge number of OS projects depend. Way to go MySQL :-))

    Simon

  • What about me? (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'm a Python guy and I feel fucked over.

  • I don't see a problem with it... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by robslimo ( 587196 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:15AM (#8551540) Homepage Journal
    ...but I'm sure some GPL zealots might.

    To me, it looks like an issue of pragmatism and the MySQL folks apparently aren't hung up on religious adherence to GPL principles.

    It's an issue of maximum applicability, to me.

    • Phrase (Score:5, Funny)

      by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:08AM (#8551793) Homepage Journal
      ...hung up on religious adherence to GPL principles.

      I think the phrase you're looking for is "GNU Dogma." Correct?

    • Re:I don't see a problem with it... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      The thing about MySQL's GPL licensing nonsense is that it cannot be used from within libgda [gnome.org] the GNOME data access system -- and so the backend for MySQL ends up being removed. This probably applies to other systems as well.

      • [MySQL] cannot be used from within libgda

        While I disagree with MySQL's decision to GPL the client libraries, I don't think it's a significant problem. Libgda is LGPL, which is explicitly GPL compatible. Maintain the GPLed MySQL backend separately (which is easy to do with libgda's modular back ends), so the user has the choice to build a GPLed libgda with MySQL support.

        Incidentally, I agree with other posters that MySQL's FOSS exception is practically worthless, due to the aggregation clause.

    • but I'm sure some GPL zealots might.

      What is wrong with being fanatically committed [reference.com] to the GPL and its principles? Seriously, it is all too easy to suggest that somebody who makes a stand is an extremist, when you yourself declare no standards and bend with the wind.

      Maximum applicability is pretty vague. I'm guessing you mean that individuals, groups or for-profit organisations ought to use whatever licensing terms are most applicable... but to what end? Do you value the quantity of software, the technic

  • It had to happen. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by James A. J. Joyce ( 759969 ) <wrt@@@forpresident...com> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:15AM (#8551541) Journal
    PHP and MySQL are very close. One can't really thrive without the other, so if one adopts a more restrictive license, both lose out. And considering the massive penetration of PHP and MySQL, neither can risk this kind of thing.
    • One can't really thrive without the other

      In the webspace this may be true. However, MySql is far more than a backend to a web database (OK I'll admit PHP is more than access to a database as well) both projects are used independently of each other in numerous ways.
    • Quite the contrary, I develop several applications using MySQL and none of them are PHP-based, but rather C. Why should PHP get any special attention? It's just another tool, one that I choose not to use, and certainly some PHP scriptkiddie doesn't deserve any better licensing than I do.

    • Re:It had to happen. (Score:5, Informative)

      by DarkSarin ( 651985 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:09AM (#8551805) Homepage Journal
      Not really...

      PHP, though most commonly used in conjunction with MySQL, cerainly has many other uses, and can connect to a number of other databases, even that *other* open source db, postgre.

      Sorry, but while it might hurt php to lose mysql, it wouldn't kill it.
    • I don't know - there are a great many PHP projects out there that offer the use of PostgreSQL instead of MySQL.
  • So how is it that people were not allowed to bundle/redistribute the libraries with their own GPL/LGPL'd projects? I read through the article but don't have any of this back information. Could anyone post for me and any others curious about what these revisions were over exactly?

    • MySQL changed the license of the client libraries to GPL from LGPL. This meant that anything which linked to the client libs had to be GPL. The non-GPL crowd (including PHP) got in a huff about this.

      • Re:hm? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by kasperd ( 592156 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:37AM (#8551962) Homepage Journal
        MySQL changed the license of the client libraries to GPL from LGPL.

        Then how come nobody forked the libraries? You could take the new server (where it doesn't matter if the license is GPL or LGPL as you are not going to link it against anything) and the old libraries that were released under LGPL. Then modify those libraries as much as necesarry to work better with the new version of the server. And release the modified libraries under LGPL.

  • MySql (Score:3, Interesting)

    by ultrabot ( 200914 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:17AM (#8551556)
    Why do people still keep using MySQL, in spite of their atrocious license changes? Or does everyone insist to keep on using the old version?

    Postgresql is there, and is as free as can be.

    BTW, why can't people just fork the old version of MySQL and use any license they want? Lack of skills?
    • That is what we have been doing (using old MySQL) but I really want to use the latest MySQL.... Now, I think, we can install it.

      Postgresql would be nice. That was being looked in to.

    • Re:MySql (Score:4, Insightful)

      by RLiegh ( 247921 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:26AM (#8551597) Homepage Journal
      Probably for the same reason that they don't switch to PostSQL -- massive investment of time in learning MySQL (we're talking years, here) which makes them hesitent to switch to an incompatible technology, and unable to do the heavy programming required to create a new branch from old MySQL code.

      • OurSQL fork... (Score:4, Funny)

        by turnstyle ( 588788 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:29AM (#8551616) Homepage
        "...unable to do the heavy programming required to create a new branch from old MySQL code."

        What heavy programming? After all, can't you just take it, change a few lines and call it OurSQL?

    • because most people install and use it for free

    • Re:MySql (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:37AM (#8551655) Homepage
      The same reason millions of people continue to use windows and OS X.

      Everyone knows how to use it, it's well-documented, It works, and (in the case of OSX), it's pretty damn good at what it does.

    • Re:MySql (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Postgresql is there, and is as free as can be.

      Postgresql is too complicated to administer. Unless you want to hire a full time DBA then just stick with MySQL for your small projects. Much easier to setup and learn.

    • Re:MySql (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kris ( 824 )
      Because Postgresql cannot compete with MySQL in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.

      Postgresql is underdocumented, the MySQL online documentation simply excels.

      There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.

      Postgresql does not support shared scenarios as good as MySQL. That's sharing the same machine with a web server, and that's shari


      • Because Postgresql cannot compete with MySQL in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.

        Or as economics say it: "The quality of a product is determined by the consumer of the product."

      • Because Postgresql cannot compete with MySQL in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.

        Bullshit! If your scenario is 'having an RDBMS' then it's MySQL who cannot live up to the task, Transactions, subqueries and data constraints are more then just 'nifty features' you know.

        There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.

        Yes but you g

        • Re:MySql (Score:3, Insightful)

          by kris ( 824 )
          Bullshit! If your scenario is 'having an RDBMS' then it's MySQL who cannot live up to the task, Transactions, subqueries and data constraints are more then just 'nifty features' you know.

          I know. Even MySQL knows, or otherwise they wouldn't build them into their current versions.

          Still their importance is overestimated - the bottom 80% of all applications are just fine with MySQLs MYISAM "autocommit style nontransactions" and deal without subqueries just fine. MySQL just totally owns that market because a)

      • bullshit (Score:5, Informative)

        by RelliK ( 4466 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @01:13PM (#8552428)
        The parent post is a troll.

        Postgresql is underdocumented, the MySQL online documentation simply excels.

        Complete and utter bullshit. How is this [postgresql.org] for documentation? There are also excellent books about it.

        There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.

        That's a circular argument: everybody uses MySQL because everyone else does. (I can name a certain OS that benefits from this situation...) A good DBA would have no problem picking up PostgreSQL in a matter of days. I don't care about trained monkeys.

        There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized MySQL installations for cheap money.

        Again bullshit. PostgreSQL supports multiple databases per server very well, including separate access controls for each db.

        Postgresql replication is regarded mostly experimental and is not properly integrated with the server. In larger MySQL deployments, replication is often used for load sharing (direct read only queries against any replica), and for backups.

        Replication (in both MySQL and PostgreSQL) is mostly useless since it is asynchronous. That is, when you commit a transaction you can not be sure if/when it gets propagated to the slaves. Therefore, if you read from a slave you can never be sure that it's up to date. I'll grant you that there are certain situations where this can be tolerated, but for high availability mission critical sites, it's useless. For that you need distributed transactions. The only open source DB that supports them is firebird.

        BTW, I'm glad you mentioned backups. PostgreSQL , just like any real database, can do on-line backups. However, to back up MySQL, you need to read-lock all the tables! The only way to get around that is by setting up replication and backing up the slave.

        Postgresql already has many features MySQL either just got with 4.1 or is planned to get in 5.x. That is useless, though, if you do not need these features, but need to deploy in a hosted standard environment, relying on the available workforce.

        Yeah, I'm sure you don't need transactions, subselects, triggers, stored procedures, or even *gasp* correct and predictable behaviour [sql-info.de].

        But you are right about one thing: everybody uses MySQL because everybody else does.

        • Re:bullshit (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jadavis ( 473492 )

          Postgresql is underdocumented, the MySQL online documentation simply excels.

          Complete and utter bullshit. How is this for documentation? There are also excellent books about it.

          I am a strong advocate of PostgreSQL. However, to say that Postgres' docs are perfect is false. This has been discussed on the advocacy mailing lists before. PostgreSQL has great docs for people who need a reference and pretty much know where to look, and what they're looking for.

          In my opinion, PostgreSQL docs could be improved

      • Re:MySql (Score:3, Funny)

        by Billly Gates ( 198444 )
        Because Linux cannot compete with Windows in terms of features that count for the target scenarios.

        The Linux how-to's are underdocumented, the MSDN online documentation simply excels.

        There is no readily available workforce that has actual Linux knowledge compared to MCSE's. There are on the other hand buttloads of people available that can drive average sized Windows installations for cheap money.

        Linux does not support shared ole/com business apps as good as Windows. That's sharing the same machine with

      • Re:MySql (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Cecil ( 37810 )
        Postgresql replication is regarded mostly experimental and is not properly integrated with the server. In larger MySQL deployments, replication is often used for load sharing (direct read only queries against any replica), and for backups.

        Perhaps PostgreSQL is not as unreliable as MySQL, so it doesn't need replication nearly as badly. I have yet to see a slashdotted site running postgres fall over and die (although it does get slow). MySQL, on the other hand, how often have you seen it return blank screen

        • Re:MySql (Score:5, Insightful)

          by kris ( 824 ) <kris-slashdot@koehntopp.de> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @03:52PM (#8553623) Homepage
          Perhaps PostgreSQL is not as unreliable as MySQL, so it doesn't need replication nearly as badly. I have yet to see a slashdotted site running postgres fall over and die (although it does get slow).

          Replication is not limited to reliability issues, in fact, even in MySQL it is not used for that most of the time. It is instead being used for scalability, and for convenience.

          When MySQL sites fail, they usually fail due to the MySQL connection pool being exhausted - MySQL has a configureable limit for this, and your webserver has a configureable limit for the number of concurrent connections (each using a number of database connections) it serves. If these numbers do not match, any database server will return errors.

          And just for the record, where I work, I have seen Oracle servers fall over and die. Not due to connection limits, but due to plain and simple errors inside the code. Then again, where I work we tend to exercise our machines quite a bit.

          MySQL is a toy

          Actually, I'd tend to call MySQL a tool. One that's has been vastly different from Postgresql and Oracle in the past (3.x versions), and one that served the target market much better than either Postgresql or Oracle could - there is simply no way to build shared hosting for webshop/weblog/guestbook/cms/ad-hoc type applications based on Oracle for a competitive price.

          And even if you managed to get the licenses for free, the hardware and administration costs would have forced you out of the market. Using Oracle here would be like using the sledge hammer for motherboard maintenance.

          Similar situation with Postgresql: At the time the LAMP hosting market was created, the Postgresql team did not offer their product in a packaging that was usable for the job - no neat distribution, no documentation that a hoster could have handed to the end user, no proper support for shared hosting environments.

          MySQL addressed all these needs, had a matching deployment model and the price was right. Using this as a vehicle, MySQL grew with the market and created a vast number of people using MySQL as a household name.

          That was possible, because this was a new market far below what the established database vendors saw as their target markets, and with much smaller requirements. There was no need at all for "enterprise level" in webhosting environments.

          But consider what MySQL did to the unwashed masses: Before the advent of the LAMP combination, SQL knowledge was expert knowledge, and hard to find. MySQL, not Postgres nor Oracle - both older than MySQL! - , changed this and today every script kiddie has basic MySQL syntax knowledge and would rather chose a MySQL database than a flat file to store a high score list.

          MySQL 4.0 and 4.1 are the first steps MySQL, the company, takes migrate their market upwards into "enterprise" regions. 5.0 will take them there, read the feature plan and try out the Alpha. They are arriving in their new market segment right now, and they are not alone. They are bringing masses of people that grew up on MySQL and that grew with MySQL.

          That does two things: It commoditizes databases, gnawing at the market from below. MySQL does to the SQL market what Linux did to the Unix market, only that MySQL is now where Linux was in 1994 in terms of market development. It also popularizes knowledge, in this case knowledge about relational algebra and data modelling, about SQL, replication, storage management and related issues, just as the advent of Linux popularized knowledge about Unix, about TCP/IP networking and a lot of related topics.

          Any yeah: Linux was not "enterprise level" in 1994 as well and got badmouthed by the established Unix vendors. Didn't help them much: It is Linux that's still around, while the rest is either vanishing, sueing themselves to death or is frantically becoming Linux compatible.

          MySQL could become the Linux of the database market. If - and that's a big if - if the MySQL management avoids getting into the way of such a development.

          Chances are that they fuck it up. There is to much venture capital involved - these people want to see 3-5 year returns on their money, but we are talking a 10-15 year development here.

          • Re:MySql (Score:4, Insightful)

            by doom ( 14564 ) <doom@kzsu.stanford.edu> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @05:21PM (#8554183) Homepage Journal
            kris wrote:

            And just for the record, where I work, I have seen Oracle servers fall over and die. Not due to connection limits, but due to plain and simple errors inside the code.
            Acutally, I've worked places where this was happening with Oracle now and then for reasons that were hard to determine. There was some sort of load-related "spiral-of-death" happening. A shutdown and restart would "fix" everything, until the next time... (the solution they came up with was to just reduce the query load on the Oracle database by using distributed Postgresql databases with copies of read-mostly data).

            Actually, I'd tend to call MySQL a tool. One that's has been vastly different from Postgresql and Oracle in the past (3.x versions), and one that served the target market much better than either Postgresql or Oracle could - there is simply no way to build shared hosting for webshop/weblog/guestbook/cms/ad-hoc type applications based on Oracle for a competitive price.
            But suddenly you're not talking about Postgresql anymore... Most of the stuff people do with MySQL you could easily do with Postgresql instead (hell, *most* of it you could just use BDB).

            This seems a little confused:

            Similar situation with Postgresql: At the time the LAMP hosting market was created, the Postgresql team did not offer their product in a packaging that was usable for the job - no neat distribution, no documentation that a hoster could have handed to the end user, no proper support for shared hosting environments.
            I can't imagine what you're talking about, really. When web apps were adopting MySQL Postgresql had a number of genuine technical problems that turned people off, but these don't sound like them. For example, there was an 18K limit on row size.

            (And also during that period, MySQL had the market cornered on bullshit. Like "Transactions??? Aww, you don't need that shit." And MySQL boosters than -- and now -- seem to regard mysql.org as the fountain of truth... for example, "MySQL is *fast*" appears to be an article of faith, but the people who say that rarely do their own benchmarks, never worry about what happens under heavy load, etc.)

            Any yeah: Linux was not "enterprise level" in 1994 as well and got badmouthed by the established Unix vendors.
            And they all laughed at Christopher Columbus, but many people who seem crazy genuinely are crazy, and some things that experts sneer at as toys may in fact really be toys.

            Chances are that they fuck it up. There is to much venture capital involved - these people want to see 3-5 year returns on their money, but we are talking a 10-15 year development here.
            Yup. Usually venture capital is the death of anything worthwhile (it's amazing google has held on for so long).

            Anyway, I should explain that I don't keep up with the state of MySQL's code. For all I know the MySQL defenders are right when they say they're got all the features you could want now... I gave up on following MySQL a long time ago, but I did it as much for social reasons as for technical ones.

            MySQL has always been a little too cute in the way they pose like one of the guys to keep their mindshare in the free/open world. Remember the old not-exactly-free license that penalized people for running on Microsoft? It's sounds like they're trying to play the same kind of games with their sort-of-GPL'ed libraries.

    • Re:MySql (Score:5, Insightful)

      by /ASCII ( 86998 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:23AM (#8551882) Homepage
      Because MySQL is GPLed?

      Since the license of several open source scripting languages are not GPL-compatible, MySQL grants these projects additional rights above those already provided through the GPL.

      So these 'atrocious license changes' are like the TV-sales people who when you order you new set of stake knives insist on also giving you a juicer and a can opener for free.

  • Distros cannot take advantage of this (Score:5, Interesting)

    by tepples ( 727027 ) <.tepples. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:18AM (#8551560) Homepage Journal

    This license exception is BS. It requires that "The Derivative Work does not include or aggregate any part of the MySQL Server" where "the term 'include or aggregate' means to embed, integrate, bundle, aggregate, link, distribute on the same media or in the same packaging, provide with instructions to download or automate any of the preceding processes." This effectively means that any non-GPL program that links to MySQL client libraries cannot be distributed in an operating system distribution with the MySQL server. It also means that the documentation for such packages can't even mention "www.MySQL.com" because that would count as "provid[ing] with instructions to download".

  • Love PHP! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by tarzan353 ( 246515 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:21AM (#8551577)
    I really enjoy using PHP for web development. I find that you can't beat scripting languages for ease of maintenance, quick turnaround time, and tweakability.

    One of the big reasons I chose PHP was the availability of "LAMP": Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. I know these technologies have been around for years and will be around for many more years, so it's an easy sell to management. There's plenty of talk on the newgroups if you ever get stuck and PHP's online documentation with user comments is priceless. I think more documentation should follow this example.

    That aside, the pure performance and reliability of the above is excellent. These technologies were made to work together, and from what I hear the teams even collaborate to make sure their stuff stays working together. It really shows.

    Years ago I worked on ASP/SQL Server solutions and where you had to go with native code for high-performance with ASP, I find that with PHP it is high performance on its own.

    Great job to everyone who has helped put together these technology solutions. A shining example of the high quality that can come out of the collaborative efforts of many.

    • Bloody ASP (Score:3, Funny)

      by ChopsMIDI ( 613634 )
      Years ago I worked on ASP/SQL Server solutions and where you had to go with native code for high-performance

      Let's not forget that oh so common feature of Formatting Dates in ASP, you need to link native code for the "Format" function in VB (since FormatDate gives you a whopping 4 options) to get some even remotely as close to the power of the simple "date" function in PHP. Pretty shitty. God I hate ASP.

  • Old news? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:22AM (#8551580)
    Im sure i saw this within the Mysql license over 2 months ago. Its good to see mysql making exceptions for other opensource projects, and acknowledging that there are other non gpl licenses. I wonder if the PHP crew will reevaluate the decision to remove mysql client from php5?

  • Will this boot MySQL from Debian? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Mr. Darl McBride ( 704524 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:26AM (#8551599)
    Debian prohibits discriminatory licenses. The exception makes this become a discriminatory license.

    Will Debian now remove MySQL or move it to non-free?

    ~Darl

    • Re:Will this boot MySQL from Debian? (Score:4, Informative)

      by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:37AM (#8551652) Journal
      Will Debian now remove MySQL or move it to non-free?

      Well, whether or not MySQL happens to allow this exception themselves, I don't see any reason why Debian couldn't simply redistribute MySQL and remove the exception.

      Presumably MySQL is offering a specific non-GPL licence to select 'friends', of which PHP is one. This does not change the fact that MySQL is also distributing its product under the GPL. Thus, Debian can simply choose to only use the GPL for redistribution.

    • Re:Will this boot MySQL from Debian? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by interiot ( 50685 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:47AM (#8551702) Homepage
      Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) [debian.org]:
      • 5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

      • The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

        6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

        The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

      Debian Free Software Guidelines (DFSG) FAQ [debian.org]:
      • Q: What about licenses that grant different rights to different groups? Isn't that discrimination, banned by DFSG#5/6?

      • A: For Debian's purposes, if all the different groups can exercise their DFSG rights, it's OK if there are other people who can do more. For example, if a work were distributed to everyone under the GPL, but elementary school teachers were given the extra right to distribute binaries without distributing the corresponding source code, it would still be DFSG-Free.

      Makes a whole lot of sense to me.

  • ok, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by hak1du ( 761835 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:29AM (#8551610) Journal
    I have no problem with the making such a license change per se--they have the right to do it and it doesn't limit the existing license in any wqy.

    But, the approach itself strikes me as unnecessarily complex and short-sighted. There is a growing list of compatible licenses in there--who is going to keep that up to date? What's going to happen when MySQL disappears and nobody can make such little changes to the license anymore?

    A fairly straightforward compromise would be to put them under the LGPL license. I think that would also make sense because it would get vendors of commercial tools to incorporate the client libraries into their software. But it seems like MySQL's business strategy is getting into the way there because they appear to want to make money from licensing even the MySQL client libraries that way.

    This situation seems vaguely analogous to Qt's GPL license: in both cases, a commercial owner of an OSS project is choosing the GPL license as an encumbrance in order to be able to get money from some class of commercial users. In the case of MySQL, they are trying to limit the "collateral damage" to non-GPL compatible OSS projects by making exceptions. But in both cases, I suspect that having these libraries under the GPL is itself a suboptimal strategy because it limits the adoption of OSS. For things like GUI toolkits and database client libraries, it seems best for OSS if companies incorporate them into their commercial software as much as possible, and that means choosing a license more liberal than the GPL. But, again, commercial interests prevent that in these cases.

    Well, I personally had just assume that the MySQL client libraries were LGPL or BSD. Thanks for bringing this up. Not the license change itself, but the fact that it has brought the MySQL license situation to my attention, is a reason for me to think about using SQLite and PostgreSQL more seriously.

    • Re:ok, but... (Score:3, Informative)

      by kris ( 824 )
      Well, I personally had just assume that the MySQL client libraries were LGPL or BSD.

      The MySQL Client Libraries 3.x are LGPL. The MySQL Client Libraries 4.x are GPL. In order to talk to a 4.x server, you need 4.x client libraries. 4.x client libraries are downward compatible and can talk to 3.x servers.

    • Re:ok, but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      The GNU Project has two principal licenses to use for libraries. One is the GNU Lesser GPL; the other is the ordinary GNU GPL. The choice of license makes a big difference: using the Lesser GPL permits use of the library in proprietary programs; using the ordinary GPL for a library makes it available only for free programs.

      Which license is best for a given library is a matter of strategy, and it depends on the details of the situation. At present, most GNU libraries are covered by the Lesser GPL, and that

  • moral: don't contribute to copyright holder (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:29AM (#8551611)
    The moral of the story is clear: don't contribute to dual licensed projects, or any project where there is a clear single copyright owner. They have the ability to re-license at will, profiting from your work as you please and not having to offer in return what the original distribution license intended (e.g. GPL).

    • Re:moral: don't contribute to copyright holder (Score:4, Insightful)

      by saforrest ( 184929 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:57AM (#8551748) Journal
      The moral of the story is clear: don't contribute to dual licensed projects, or any project where there is a clear single copyright owner. They have the ability to re-license at will, profiting from your work as you please and not having to offer in return what the original distribution license intended (e.g. GPL).

      I know little about copyright law, but this seems wong to me. When you contribute code, you must have some expectation of how the code will be distributed.

      The ownership of collaborative projects cannot be determined uniquely by the initial copyright owner. For example, I don't think Linus Torvalds has the right to release Linux under a non-GPL licence.

      MySQL has always been available under more than one licence [mysql.com], so calling the GPL the 'original distribution license' is wrong. Contributors to MySQL must have known their work would be released commercially as well as under GPL, and contributed code with this belief.

      So, the reason MySQL has the power to release code under a non-GPL licence without breaking faith with their contributors is because they have always reserved that right to themselves, have informed contributors of this fact all along, not because they are the 'original copyright holder'.

      That said, you're quite right that if you believe strongly in the GPL as the one true licence, contributing to dual-licensed projects, especially ones in which the second licence is proprietary, might be setting yourself up for betrayal.

      A better idea than not contributing at all is forking, redistributing only under the GPL, and contributing to the new forked project. Since the original project would still be GPL'ed, you could incorporate later revisions, while keeping your own changes, but all this work would probably get tedious after awhile unless you really believed in the goal (using the GPL exclusively).

    • Re:moral: don't contribute to copyright holder (Score:4, Insightful)

      by ChopsMIDI ( 613634 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:06AM (#8551780) Homepage
      Once a release has been distributed and licensed under the GPL (or any license for thaty matter), you can't "un-license" it later.

  • Here me now, believe me later (Score:5, Informative)

    by freelunch ( 258011 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:29AM (#8551613)
    MYSQL just received $19.5 million in venture capital funding.

    While this could and should be great, it remains to be seen what impact the influx will have.

  • How about Red Hat? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @10:46AM (#8551693) Journal
    The RH enterprise 3, releases has all MySQL v3.
    The MySQL changelog says:

    * Thu Jul 03 2003 Patrick Macdonald 3.23.57-1
    - revert to prior version of MySQL due to license incompatibilities
    with packages that link against the client. The MySQL folks are
    looking into the issue.
    • I think MySQL realizes that their license is restricting some distributions that they'd rather allow, and they're working on ways fix their license so such things are allowed. Nice to see a license-writer who's admitting mistakes and patching up the damage...
  • As much as there are some FSF fans wish that the GPL was the only software license, it's not the one-size-fits-all solution for everybody. That's why the LGPL exists. That's why Creative Commons exists. That's why many common open-source programs have forked the GPL to make it their own.

    We can debate the finer points of whether such changes should be made or not, but let's not treat the GPL like it's a religion. It's not perfect.

    • Comparing anything to perfection is unproductive; it serves to reinforce our biases by presenting us with a false dichotomy (you can have whatever argument is being proposed or you can have perfection, which is never available). Let's look at specific claims.

      As much as there are some FSF fans wish that the GPL was the only software license [...]

      Please name who these people are and cite the evidence that gives you this impression.

      [...] it's not the one-size-fits-all solution for everybody. That's why the LGPL exists. That's why Creative Commons exists. That's why many common open-source programs have forked the GPL to make it their own.

      That explanation barely gets into why the LGPL exists [gnu.org]. The Creative Commons doesn't recommend their licenses for software [creativecommons.org]. The GNU project started over a decade before the open source movement began and the GNU project was founded to talk about software freedom, not a development methodology [gnu.org]. I'd also be interested to learn who, besides the Affero General Public License [affero.org] has "forked" the GNU GPL. The Creative Commons has listed the GNU GPL, not forked it.

      [...] but let's not treat the GPL like it's a religion. It's not perfect.

      Who, exactly, is doing this and what, exactly, are they saying?

  • a little history (Score:5, Informative)

    by aint ( 183045 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:31AM (#8551938)
    MySQL client libraries have been included/bundled with PHP for a long time now, and MySQL support was enabled by default. As of PHP 5, these client libraries are no longer bundled, and MySQL is not enabled by default. This essentially makes MySQL support like any other PHP extension, nothing special. To install, simply download MySQL and configure PHP with --with-mysql. Not a big deal. You do the same for PgSQL, CURL, TIDY, GD, etc.

    An official FAQ on this issue can be seen here:
    http://us2.php.net/manual/en/faq.databases.php#faq .databases.mysql.php5 [php.net]

    You'll notice that the license issue isn't the only reason PHP 5 stopped bundling these MySQL libraries so I assume despite this license change PHP 5 will not bundle MySQL by default. One might say the marriage continues to exist...but that it's no longer "forced" onto people.

    • Re:a little history (Score:5, Informative)

      by Permission Denied ( 551645 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @12:00PM (#8552063) Journal
      MySQL client libraries have been included/bundled with PHP for a long time now, and MySQL support was enabled by default.

      This was always a bad thing actually. If you actually used the library distributed with php, you'd often get subtle breakage because your server was a different version.

      Another thing to note is that MySQL may drop in popularity as PHP 5 increases in popularity. PHP 5 comes bundled with SQLite. SQLite does not require a server but works directly on database files, yet it provides most of the SQL features needed by most projects. SQLite recently added a last_insert_id() function for auto_increment fields; along with that, the only other mysql-specific features I commonly use are the SQL date arithmetic functions.

      Working directly on portable database files opens up a lot of possibilities: projects can simply distribute a tarball of php+sql databases and users can just untar it into a web directory to install without creating database users or running a table creation script. This is also great for web hosting as a provider can just say "store your databases in your home directory" and they don't have to worry about managing database users or moving around table files. Users can set up read-only mirrors of a site just by copying files rather than setting up replication to new sql server. This means that database-driven php sites can be mirrored as easily as html-only sites. SQLite can also be useful in this same way for non-php projects: you can create a database application using QT/GTK/WX in C/C++/Python/Perl and simply distribute source or binaries with a traditional installer or package manager. Users no longer have to set up a database server to use a simple database application.

  • SQLite (Score:3, Informative)

    by ChopsMIDI ( 613634 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:39AM (#8551970) Homepage
    Well for those of you that don't like MySQL's restrictive licenses and want a quick little SQL db, PHP 5 is shipping [php.net] with SQLite. [hwaci.com]

    An interesting little database to say the least.

  • Embedded MySQL? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin,kosch&gmail,com> on Saturday March 13, 2004 @11:45AM (#8551998) Journal
    So does this mean we could see an embedded version of MySQL in PHP? With PHP 5 embedding SQLLite MySQL stands to lose a good market share.

  • Very sad situation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by biwillia ( 35276 ) * on Saturday March 13, 2004 @01:07PM (#8552403)
    For me the situation with MySQL's licensing shenanigans is quite sad. For small commercial software development shops who have been loyal to MySQL over the past few years, it's sad to have to say goodbye.

    It's fine that I have to pay money for a database server and all, but the GPL-licensed client library makes light usage of MySQL impossible for small software vendors. Even Microsoft SQL server has LGPL client libraries available (like freetds)! I can't see how MySQL can compete with other commerical software vendors that have less restrictive client-library licensing.

    For the MySQL folks to claim that the GPL is binding through a regular socket connection is quite a strech at best, and a slap in the face to those of us who write [L]GPL-licensed software.

  • Exception? (Score:3, Funny)

    by lpangelrob2 ( 721920 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @01:16PM (#8552440) Journal
    Crap, I knew this was gonna happen....
    catch (Exception $mysqlException) {
    echo $mysqlException->getMessage();
    }
    All right, should be fixed. :-)

  • Problem with PHP License (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bellings ( 137948 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @01:22PM (#8552470)
    So, MySQL is distributed under the GPL, and PHP is distributed under a license incompatible with the GPL.

    How is this MySQL's problem?
    • Well.. It is because MySQL recently changed its license to GPL from LGPL, because PHP can do very well without MySQL, (yes, there are severel good alternatives to MySQL around), and because (and MySQL A/B KNOWS this) it might even be fair to say, that MySQL owes its current marketshare to PHP.

  • This licensing stuff is getting ridiculous (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheLink ( 130905 ) on Saturday March 13, 2004 @01:50PM (#8552720) Journal
    Is anyone tempted to release some cool software/music/stuff/work with a default restrictive licenses (must pay etc etc), but have some exceptions like:

    You are free to distribute Derivative/Identical Works as long as:
    1) Every Feb 1st and August 17th you go to a public area with at least 20 strangers present, stand on one leg and yell "foobar bubble bubble!" including the double quotes.
    Or
    2) Every full moon you infringe the MySQL and Microsoft software licenses, and email them a goatse.cx/tubgirl pic.
    Or
    3) You do an anonymous, random (and different) quirky good deed to a random (and different) stranger every month - only counts if the target will likely think it is good.

    AND you claim that Al Gore is the actual author of the works.

    Sheesh.

Slashdot Top Deals

White dwarf seeks red giant for binary relationship.

Close