Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?

[Zak Greant]

Greetings Larry and All,

On Jun 16, 2004, at 23:56, Lawrence Rosen wrote:
> Glen Low wrote:
>> [Humor aside, if the code I'm linking with MySQL is on their approved
>> FLOSS list, what functionally is the difference between MySQL being 
>> LGPL
>> and it being GPL + FLOSS Exception?]
>
> Probably no difference at all.
>
> This entire matter has been blown way out of proportion because of the
> insistence of some that the reciprocity conditions of the GPL or LGPL 
> reach
> to something more than derivative works. But if you read the actual 
> terms of
> both licenses carefully in light of the copyright law definitions of
> *collective works* and *derivative works*, then mere linking to any 
> Program
> -- treating the Program as a black box with hooks for connectivity -- 
> does
> not lead to reciprocity under either license. The LGPL and the GPL 
> have the
> same effect -- that is, NO EFFECT -- on the licenses of independent and
> separate other works that merely link.

Please note, I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. However, as a 
registered user of /., I am obviously happy to dispense ill-formed and 
crass opinions at the drop of a byte. Disclaimers aside:

The idea of being able to draw a clear line between derivative and 
collective works based on "treating the Program as a black box with 
hooks for connectivity" makes me very uncomfortable. It is generally a 
relatively trivial task to create a GPL-licensed wrapper that allows 
GPL-licensed code to be used as a black box component. In effect, 
architecture can trump the copyright holders rights, even when is 
clearly not what they desire.

I must work on my LinuxTag presentations now, but will try to keep up 
with this thread (if it continues) from Germany.

Thanks again for the time all!

Cheers!
--zak

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3