MySQL 4

[Dan Williams]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 21:19 +0200, Thomas Zehetbauer wrote:
> On Mit, 2004-10-06 at 08:06 -0400, Dan Williams wrote:
> > What exactly needs to be fixed in the PHP license?
> 
> Whatever prevents RedHat from shipping php-mysql package for MySQL 4.

That's hardly an answer to "what needs to be fixed."  You asserted that
php is what needs to be changed.  Prove it.

> > Yes, this is the correct procedure.  The software you distribute is under 
> > the license included with it.  You don't distribute a program that is not 
> > GPL just because its authors say they will GPL it in the near future.  Red 
> > Hat Legal also looked over the new license and had some issues with it.
> 
> Even when the official website of the copyright owner provides a more
> recent and less restrictive license? I guess this is one of the issues
> only a judge can decide.

Taking someone else's legal advice when they are not a lawyer and not
_your_ lawyer is insane and stupid as a basis for legal decisions.  Red
Hat is a company.  Were we to get sued, we may be forced into things
much worse than not distributing MySQL.

> > Evidentally, Legal still has some issues with the "exception clause" that 
> > MySQL AB put in to overcome the above issues.
> 
> Could you please elaborate? If your legal department has a problem with
> the GNU Public License (GPL) under which MySQL is currently available
> they probably work for the wrong company.

No, there is not a problem with the GPL.  There may (as I understand it)
still be an issue with the MySQL AB's _attachment_ of the exception
clause.  It is no longer a pure GPL license since this part is now
there, and therefore you cannot use your current GPL knowledge to defend
the current MySQL license.  This is not to say it will not be included
at some future time, just that its licensing is in flux and not all
questions have been answered.

Dan