Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

I agree with every point Larry states. I also think that if an "author" 
chooses to adopt a license (the GPL) or is concerned about "compatibility" 
with the terms of the GPL, the author may find it prudent to take into 
account the views of the drafter(s) of the GPL...especially if they 
conflict with other interpretations of the GPL.   One might then choose to 
ignore those views, but that is a different matter.  For my part, I have 
never fount Richard Stallman's views on the interpretation of the GPL as to 
matters of linking to be entirely clear or uncontroversial with regard to 
likely legal meanings of "derivative" work; notwithstanding that courts are 
often imprecise about the meaning of derivative works as well. 

If this issue is important to anyone, I remain convinced that the best work 
around is to use something like the OSL or a draft of one's own license and 
clarify, clarify, clarify.

- Rod

 
---------
Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.
www.cyberspaces.org

This email never should be construed as legal advice.

...... Original Message .......
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 22:56:19 -0700 "Lawrence Rosen" <lrosen at rosenlaw.com> 
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.
>
>As for the MySQL License Exception, I believe its interpretation of the
>effects of the GPL, and its description of what happens when you create
>*collective works* with MySQL and other open source software, is accurate. 
I
>also happen to believe that this "Exception" doesn't need to be an 
exception
>at all, because that's how the GPL should be interpreted anyway.
>"Independent and separate works" can never be forced under the GPL if they
>are not *derivative works* of GPL programs. The MySQL folks have tried to
>eliminate confusion about their licenses by stating in their own words what
>the GPL and LGPL really do anyway. 
>
>John Cowan is also right in describing this as benefit to MySQL AB.
>Improvements to the MySQL Program itself remain open source, and
>high-quality independent and separate works that interact with MySQL
>increase opportunities to sell MySQL AB software and services. The MySQL
>trademark remains a valuable symbol of quality.
>
>Open source companies like MySQL need to reassure their customers about the
>reach of the GPL and LGPL. I recently wrote a similarly reassuring paper
>about the LGPL for JBoss customers that they've posted on the jboss.org
>website. You can read it here: 
http://jboss.org/pdf/why_we_use_the_lgpl.pdf.
>
>
>/Larry
>
>Lawrence Rosen 
>Rosenlaw & Einschlag, technology law offices (www.rosenlaw.com)
>General counsel, Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) 
>3001 King Ranch Road, Ukiah, CA 95482 
>707-485-1242 * fax: 707-485-1243 
>email: lrosen at rosenlaw.com 
>
>--
>license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
>

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