> Hi Mike!
>
> Please note that I am not a lawyer, but I will provide the best answers
> that I can here.
>
Heh, perhaps we need a lawyer on this list.
> On Feb 22, 2004, at 01:53, Mike Hillyer wrote:
>
>> Hello Again;
>>
>> Now here's another question: MySQL uses the GPL, but it seems like this
>> leaves a lot of room for interpretation. In addition, modifications are
>> already being made to the license to allow for linking in PHP. Is it
>> perhaps
>> time to implement the changes as "The MySQL License"?
>
>
> I think that this would increase the level of confusion about the
> licensing.
>
I was worried about the same thing while suggesting it.
> The license is the GPL, with optional exceptions. This makes it clear
> that you can use it just as if it were stock GPL. If you need to do
> things that go outside of the GPL, then you can look at the exceptions
> or purchase a license for proprietary use.
>
> Also, I like the GPL - I think it is still the best representation of
> the community side of our business ideals.
>
>> When MySQL uses the GPL as "The GPL" it makes me wonder whose
>> interpretation
>> of the GPL is final in licensing issues: is it MySQL AB's
>> interpretation or
>> the FSF's that applies? Perhaps a naming of "The MySQL Open License" and
>> "The MySQl Commercial License" would make it clear that the license is
>> specific to MySQL and MySQL AB is the final decider.
>
>
> Neither party is the final interpreter of the GPL. The GPL is based on
> copyright law and neither MySQL AB or the Free Software Foundation has
> the ability to interpret or pass laws - instead, this is generally the
> responsibility of a court.
>
Perhaps the goal is to open things up as little to interpretation as
possible.
>> Just one more thing to ponder...
>
>
> Thanks for the input - I do not think that it is a strong option right now.
>
But it did get you thinking... My work here is complete. ;)
