SEO

Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.

The MySQL protocol notice
http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html

Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someone simply
sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can be
compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietary structures,
but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built from scratch.
Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is this
their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQ describing
the GPL protocol...

If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed source
software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it any
better ethically from closed source software?

At 12:51 PM 2/22/2007, software advocate wrote:
>Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.
>
>The MySQL protocol notice
>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
>
>Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
>looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someone simply
>sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can be
>compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietary structures,
>but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built from scratch.
>Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is this
>their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQ describing
>the GPL protocol...
>
>If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed source
>software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it any
>better ethically from closed source software?

There are people who have reworked the MySQL API calls so you don't need to
distribute the MySQL DLL library with your application. You can (at least
under Windows), distribute nothing but an .exe file and it will access a
MySQL database just fine, under the assumption that your app doesn't
require the MySQL client libraries so you don't need a license. MySQL AB
will of course protest and duke it out with you in court, costing both
sides quite a bit of money.

My attitude is if you are going to distribute a commercial application, use
something other than MySQL. It's fine for web servers and in-house farting
around, but for commercial apps I'd want something that has a zero
footprint install and doesn't require a database administrator to maintain.
I would also insist on getting something with one database engine that
supports hundreds of users, transactions, RI, and is blindingly fast and
has no royalties. With MySQL you have to compromise between using fast
MyISAM tables or the slower InnoDb transactional tables. And of course
there is no table wide encryption so your client can monkey about with the
tables all he wants, which is something I'd want to avoid if I were
shipping a commercial application. And of course I don't want to fork over
$595 to MySQL AB for each application that I sell.

So rather than trying to look for loopholes in the license agreement, I'd
choose a different database for commercial apps. Just me 2 cents.

Mike

At 03:05 PM 2/22/2007, Raul Andres Duque wrote:
>What do the license say about using MySQL on web aplications (with PHP)??
>
>Regards,
>
>RAUL DUQUE
>Bogotá, Colombia

Paul,
Use of MySQL (with or without PHP) on a webserver falls into the GPL
license because you are not technically distributing your application. You
have to be distributing your application without disclosing your source
code, to another party (even inside your company) for you to require a
MySQL AB license ($595).

On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran on
MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it to 1000
MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you will need a
MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even if you give the
software away for free. Plus if you give your application to another dept
inside of your own company to run on another MySQL server, you'll need a
license if you don't give them the source code to your application. This
gets to be splitting hairs after a while and isn't really enforceable.

Sam
(I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV!)

What is 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?

Answer: Not enough sand. :-)


>----- Original Message ----- From: "mos" <mos99@fastmail.fm>
>To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
>Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:32 PM
>Subject: Re: [LICENSING] why so hazy? Comparing to Samba.
>
>
>>At 12:51 PM 2/22/2007, software advocate wrote:
>>>Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.
>>>
>>>The MySQL protocol notice
>>>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
>>>
>>>Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
>>>looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someonesimply
>>>sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can be
>>>compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietarystructures,
>>>but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built fromscratch.
>>>Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is this
>>>their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQdescribing
>>>the GPL protocol...
>>>
>>>If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed source
>>>software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it any
>>>better ethically from closed source software?
>>
>>There are people who have reworked the MySQL API calls so you don't need
>>to distribute the MySQL DLL library with your application. You can (at
>>least under Windows), distribute nothing but an .exe file and it will
>>access a MySQL database just fine, under the assumption that your app
>>doesn't require the MySQL client libraries so you don't need a license.
>>MySQL AB will of course protest and duke it out with you in court,
>>costing both sides quite a bit of money.
>>
>>My attitude is if you are going to distribute a commercial application,
>>use something other than MySQL. It's fine for web servers and in-house
>>farting around, but for commercial apps I'd want something that has a
>>zero footprint install and doesn't require a database administrator to
>>maintain. I would also insist on getting something with one database
>>engine that supports hundreds of users, transactions, RI, and is
>>blindingly fast and has no royalties. With MySQL you have to compromise
>>between using fast MyISAM tables or the slower InnoDb transactional
>>tables. And of course there is no table wide encryption so your client
>>can monkey about with the tables all he wants, which is something I'd
>>want to avoid if I were shipping a commercial application. And of course
>>I don't want to fork over $595 to MySQL AB for each application that Isell.
>>
>>So rather than trying to look for loopholes in the license agreement, I'd
>>choose a different database for commercial apps. Just me 2 cents.
>>
>>Mike
>>--
>>MySQL General Mailing List
>>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
>>To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=r...e@yahoo.com.mx

What do the license say about using MySQL on web aplications (with PHP)??

Regards,

RAUL DUQUE
Bogotá, Colombia


----- Original Message -----
From: "mos" <mos99@fastmail.fm>
To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:32 PM
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] why so hazy? Comparing to Samba.


> At 12:51 PM 2/22/2007, software advocate wrote:
>>Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.
>>
>>The MySQL protocol notice
>>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
>>
>>Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
>>looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someone simply
>>sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can be
>>compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietary
>>structures,
>>but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built from
>>scratch.
>>Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is this
>>their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQ describing
>>the GPL protocol...
>>
>>If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed source
>>software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it any
>>better ethically from closed source software?
>
> There are people who have reworked the MySQL API calls so you don't need
> to distribute the MySQL DLL library with your application. You can (at
> least under Windows), distribute nothing but an .exe file and it will
> access a MySQL database just fine, under the assumption that your app
> doesn't require the MySQL client libraries so you don't need a license.
> MySQL AB will of course protest and duke it out with you in court, costing
> both sides quite a bit of money.
>
> My attitude is if you are going to distribute a commercial application,
> use something other than MySQL. It's fine for web servers and in-house
> farting around, but for commercial apps I'd want something that has a zero
> footprint install and doesn't require a database administrator to
> maintain. I would also insist on getting something with one database
> engine that supports hundreds of users, transactions, RI, and is
> blindingly fast and has no royalties. With MySQL you have to compromise
> between using fast MyISAM tables or the slower InnoDb transactional
> tables. And of course there is no table wide encryption so your client can
> monkey about with the tables all he wants, which is something I'd want to
> avoid if I were shipping a commercial application. And of course I don't
> want to fork over $595 to MySQL AB for each application that I sell.
>
> So rather than trying to look for loopholes in the license agreement, I'd
> choose a different database for commercial apps. Just me 2 cents.
>
> Mike
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=r...e@yahoo.com.mx
>

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:39:49PM -0900, software advocate wrote:
> This is exactly why someone needs to develop a non-gpl mysql drop in client
> for PHP. This would get around license costs, despite what MySQL AB has to
> say, this would be completely legal. Ask your local rep from the FSF. One
> could always reverse engineer the protocol like the Samba team. Also the
> fact is, an idea can NOT be copyrighted. You can read the source, take
> notes, or even make documentation to create your own client.

In fact, MySQL AB has developed exactly such a thing. (Look for info on
'mysqlnd'.)

This licensing comment in the internals documentation is old, and is
supposed to be removed. Unfortunately, updating the internals
documentation is not something that gets a lot of priority.

Jim Winstead
MySQL Inc.

At 05:00 PM 2/22/2007, mos wrote:

> On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran
> on MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it
> to 1000 MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you
> will need a MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even
> if you give the software away for free.

The last line of the license notice reads: "Contact MySQL AB if you
need clarification of these terms or if you need
to ask about alternative arrangements. "

This kind of suggests to me that they're willing to talk. I expect
that as long as you're willing to pay *something*, there's probably a
lot of room for negotiation. It's distinctly not in their interest
to eliminate collateral development efforts. And there are already
several products out there which do connect with MySQL and cost < $100.


Barry Newton

This is exactly why someone needs to develop a non-gpl mysql drop in client
for PHP. This would get around license costs, despite what MySQL AB has to
say, this would be completely legal. Ask your local rep from the FSF. One
could always reverse engineer the protocol like the Samba team. Also the
fact is, an idea can NOT be copyrighted. You can read the source, take
notes, or even make documentation to create your own client.

There is a pure ruby client under Ruby license(dual: GPL or alternate
nonfree software exception). I'm sure there are others.

The real thing is, mysqlab seems to be confusing people with their ideals
which aren't in sync with how the GPL is written, nor with what the FSF
says. They're using things like the GPLs Socket FAQ to confuse people.

On 2/22/07, mos <mos99@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> At 03:05 PM 2/22/2007, Raul Andres Duque wrote:
> >What do the license say about using MySQL on web aplications (with PHP)??
> >
> >Regards,
> >
> >RAUL DUQUE
> >Bogotá, Colombia
>
> Paul,
> Use of MySQL (with or without PHP) on a webserver falls into the
> GPL
> license because you are not technically distributing your application. You
> have to be distributing your application without disclosing your source
> code, to another party (even inside your company) for you to require a
> MySQL AB license ($595).
>
> On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran on
> MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it to 1000
> MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you will need a
> MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even if you give the
> software away for free. Plus if you give your application to another dept
> inside of your own company to run on another MySQL server, you'll need a
> license if you don't give them the source code to your application. This
> gets to be splitting hairs after a while and isn't really enforceable.
>
> Sam
> (I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV!)
>
> What is 100 lawyers buried up to their necks in sand?
>
> Answer: Not enough sand. :-)
>
>
> >----- Original Message ----- From: "mos" <mos99@fastmail.fm>
> >To: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
> >Sent: Thursday, February 22, 2007 3:32 PM
> >Subject: Re: [LICENSING] why so hazy? Comparing to Samba.
> >
> >
> >>At 12:51 PM 2/22/2007, software advocate wrote:
> >>>Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.
> >>>
> >>>The MySQL protocol notice
> >>>http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
> >>>
> >>>Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
> >>>looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someone
> simply
> >>>sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can
> be
> >>>compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietary
> structures,
> >>>but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built from
> scratch.
> >>>Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is
> this
> >>>their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQ
> describing
> >>>the GPL protocol...
> >>>
> >>>If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed
> source
> >>>software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it
> any
> >>>better ethically from closed source software?
> >>
> >>There are people who have reworked the MySQL API calls so you don't need
> >>to distribute the MySQL DLL library with your application. You can (at
> >>least under Windows), distribute nothing but an .exe file and it will
> >>access a MySQL database just fine, under the assumption that your app
> >>doesn't require the MySQL client libraries so you don't need a license.
> >>MySQL AB will of course protest and duke it out with you in court,
> >>costing both sides quite a bit of money.
> >>
> >>My attitude is if you are going to distribute a commercial application,
> >>use something other than MySQL. It's fine for web servers and in-house
> >>farting around, but for commercial apps I'd want something that has a
> >>zero footprint install and doesn't require a database administrator to
> >>maintain. I would also insist on getting something with one database
> >>engine that supports hundreds of users, transactions, RI, and is
> >>blindingly fast and has no royalties. With MySQL you have to compromise
> >>between using fast MyISAM tables or the slower InnoDb transactional
> >>tables. And of course there is no table wide encryption so your client
> >>can monkey about with the tables all he wants, which is something I'd
> >>want to avoid if I were shipping a commercial application. And of course
> >>I don't want to fork over $595 to MySQL AB for each application that I
> sell.
> >>
> >>So rather than trying to look for loopholes in the license agreement,
> I'd
> >>choose a different database for commercial apps. Just me 2 cents.
> >>
> >>Mike
> >>--
> >>MySQL General Mailing List
> >>For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> >>To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=r...@yahoo.com..mx
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=s...cate@gmail.com
>
>

On 2/22/07, mos <mos99@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> At 12:51 PM 2/22/2007, software advocate wrote:
> >Let me present what I've read from the MySQL site so far.
> >
> >The MySQL protocol notice
> > http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
> >
> >Okay, really confusing. What if someone creates a mysql client without
> >looking at docs or source code of the MySQL client? What if someone
> simply
> >sniffs traffic and builds the protocol from scratch. This scenario can be
> >compared to samba in my comparison. Samba also uses proprietary
> structures,
> >but they didn't look at source or docs, they sniffed and built from
> scratch.
> >Therefore, why is the MySQL AB throwing wool over people's eyes? Is this
> >their view of the GPL? I remember reading on the GNU site a FAQ
> describing
> >the GPL protocol...
> >
> >If people are going to preach Open Source Software and damn closed source
>
> >software which tries to emulate open source protocols, what makes it any
> >better ethically from closed source software?
>
> There are people who have reworked the MySQL API calls so you don't need
> to
> distribute the MySQL DLL library with your application. You can (at least
> under Windows), distribute nothing but an .exe file and it will access a
> MySQL database just fine, under the assumption that your app doesn't
> require the MySQL client libraries so you don't need a license. MySQL AB
> will of course protest and duke it out with you in court, costing both
> sides quite a bit of money.



If they sued anyone over proper use of software covered by the GPL license,
they'd lose. Also costing them both attorney fees of the defendant.

My attitude is if you are going to distribute a commercial application, use
> something other than MySQL. It's fine for web servers and in-house farting
> around, but for commercial apps I'd want something that has a zero
> footprint install and doesn't require a database administrator to
> maintain.
> I would also insist on getting something with one database engine that
> supports hundreds of users, transactions, RI, and is blindingly fast and
> has no royalties. With MySQL you have to compromise between using fast
> MyISAM tables or the slower InnoDb transactional tables. And of course
> there is no table wide encryption so your client can monkey about with the
> tables all he wants, which is something I'd want to avoid if I were
> shipping a commercial application. And of course I don't want to fork over
> $595 to MySQL AB for each application that I sell.



Well, the program will be used to modify/fetch data out of pre existing
databases which are used by common MySQL based applications; phpbb,
wordpress, etc... I do agree with you though, MySQL isn't what I'd used on a
large commercial project.

A good example of a non-gpl mysql client would be ruby-mysql (note: not the
mysql-ruby project). If only more people created libraries like this, there
would be more people using MySQL.

I've personally emailed them in the past. Their response was for me to by a
license. When I asked them about creating my own client without reading
their docs or source code, they still insisted I buy a license.

Anyone who knows the GPL well, knows the communication layer is NOT covered
by GPL. Saying the protocol is proprietary by covering it by the GPL is a
total load of poo. If someone wants to reverse engineer the protocol and
write their own client, they can. i.e. the Samba team.

On 2/22/07, Barry Newton <bnewton@ashcomp.com> wrote:
>
> At 05:00 PM 2/22/2007, mos wrote:
>
> > On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran
> > on MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it
> > to 1000 MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you
> > will need a MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even
> > if you give the software away for free.
>
> The last line of the license notice reads: "Contact MySQL AB if you
> need clarification of these terms or if you need
> to ask about alternative arrangements. "
>
> This kind of suggests to me that they're willing to talk. I expect
> that as long as you're willing to pay *something*, there's probably a
> lot of room for negotiation. It's distinctly not in their interest
> to eliminate collateral development efforts. And there are already
> several products out there which do connect with MySQL and cost < $100.
>
>
> Barry Newton
>
>
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=s...cate@gmail.com
>
>
>

Wow, well that is just neat. It's too bad I left PHP for TurboGears.

The second problem is the buzz of frameworks (TurboGears, JBoss, etc) which
use/want to use MySQL as a backend. This is really the only issue I have
with MySQL. They do support other databases, and its not like anyone is
twisting their arm to use MySQL, but the option is nice since people already
know MySQL(if they need to send a raw statement.

On 2/22/07, Jim Winstead <jimw@mysql.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:39:49PM -0900, software advocate wrote:
> > This is exactly why someone needs to develop a non-gpl mysql drop in
> client
> > for PHP. This would get around license costs, despite what MySQL AB has
> to
> > say, this would be completely legal. Ask your local rep from the FSF.
> One
> > could always reverse engineer the protocol like the Samba team. Also the
> > fact is, an idea can NOT be copyrighted. You can read the source, take
> > notes, or even make documentation to create your own client.
>
> In fact, MySQL AB has developed exactly such a thing. (Look for info on
> 'mysqlnd'.)
>
> This licensing comment in the internals documentation is old, and is
> supposed to be removed. Unfortunately, updating the internals
> documentation is not something that gets a lot of priority.
>
> Jim Winstead
> MySQL Inc.
>