Re: mysql 4.x and fedoracore2

[Birju Prajapati <birju@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Scot L. Harris wrote:

> On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 11:48, Paul Howarth wrote:
>  
>
> > Scot L. Harris wrote:
> >    
> >
> > > If you were modifying the mysql code and providing a different version
> > > fine.  But in most cases you are simply using the database program not
> > > modifying its source code.  Your data structures and code that interacts
> > > with the database should be unencumbered.  Kind of like saying that
> > > since you compiled your program using gcc that it now has to be
> > > published as source code.  I don't think that was the intention of the
> > > GPL.  And is not the way most people have interpreted it. 
> > >      
> > Most MySQL apps will be linked against the MySQL libraries. The developers 
> > have made a conscious decision to license the software under the GPL rather 
> > than the LGPL (which would allow 'unencumbered' distribution in the manner you 
> > described), so that's clearly *their* intention. And it's the way the GPL is 
> > intended to work. The GNU readline library is licensed in the same way. If you 
> > use it, you must GPL your code. If you don't want to do that, don't use it.
> >
> > Paul.
> >    
>
> Which is what I have done.  I chose to use posgresql instead which has
> no such restriction.  
>
> They forced the issue.  I would have been happy to continue using mysql
> for the internal applications that had been developed.  
>  
OK...what I dont get is that there are so many websites that profit from 
MySQL running things other than PHP (where there is an 'optional GPL 
Licence'). So are these companies 'distributing binaries'? Will they 
have to reveal their source? Can HTML be defined as a binary??!! If the 
website has a Java applet, this is a binary, right?