Thread: Is difference between PostgreSQL and mySQL licences for client application minor only

I created closed source Postgres/mySQL client application.

When using PostgreSQL as backend I can include Postgres server binary code
in my application distro.

When using mySQL my application setup can load mySQL server installation
package from mysql website and execute it automatically.

This minor difference is the only difference between Postgres/mySQL licenses
in client application, right ?

Andrus.

"Andrus" <eetasoft@online.ee> writes:
> I created closed source Postgres/mySQL client application.
> When using PostgreSQL as backend I can include Postgres server binary code
> in my application distro.
> When using mySQL my application setup can load mySQL server installation
> package from mysql website and execute it automatically.
> This minor difference is the only difference between Postgres/mySQL licenses
> in client application, right ?

Since mysql 4.0, their client libraries are under GPL not LGPL, which
means you're violating their license if your app is linked to the client
libraries.  Playing games with not distributing the server doesn't get
you out of that.  What you're doing is *exactly* what they want you to
buy a license for, and if they felt like coming after you I think they
could enforce it in court.

            regards, tom lane

In the last exciting episode, "Andrus" <eetasoft@online.ee> wrote:
> I created closed source Postgres/mySQL client application.
>
> When using PostgreSQL as backend I can include Postgres server
> binary code in my application distro.
>
> When using mySQL my application setup can load mySQL server
> installation package from mysql website and execute it
> automatically.
>
> This minor difference is the only difference between Postgres/mySQL
> licenses in client application, right ?

That doesn't sound consistent with the arrangements that MySQL AB
expect for commercial users of their products.

They indicate assortedly that:

- If you are developing and distributing open source applications
  under the GPL, or some OSI-approved license, you are free to use
  MySQL(tm) "for free."

- If you are *not* licensing and distributing your source code under
  the GPL, then MySQL AB expects you to use their "OEM Commercial
  License," which involves negotiating a contract with their
  sales team.

Your scenario seems to clearly fall into the scenario where MySQL AB
expects you to pay them license fees.

If you don't include MySQL(tm) with your product, then that presumably
imposes the obligation to pay MySQL AB a license fee on the purchasor
that does the download.  That may leave your hands clean, but if you
do not warn your customers of their obligation, and legal problems
arise, they may not be too happy with you...
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/lsf.html
 /"\
 \ /     ASCII RIBBON CAMPAIGN
  X        AGAINST HTML MAIL
 / \

> That doesn't sound consistent with the arrangements that MySQL AB
> expect for commercial users of their products.
>
> They indicate assortedly that:
>
> - If you are developing and distributing open source applications
>   under the GPL, or some OSI-approved license, you are free to use
>   MySQL(tm) "for free."
>
> - If you are *not* licensing and distributing your source code under
>   the GPL, then MySQL AB expects you to use their "OEM Commercial
>   License," which involves negotiating a contract with their
>   sales team.
>
> Your scenario seems to clearly fall into the scenario where MySQL AB
> expects you to pay them license fees.
>
> If you don't include MySQL(tm) with your product, then that presumably
> imposes the obligation to pay MySQL AB a license fee on the purchasor
> that does the download.  That may leave your hands clean, but if you
> do not warn your customers of their obligation, and legal problems
> arise, they may not be too happy with you...
>

The real key is that MySQL has left the world of traditional open source
and has instead taken on a commercial business interest in their
"product."  This is disturbing considering that many people have
contributed code to their projects, including database drivers and other
client code that may be part of your product even if they have to
download the db engine separately.  Now, those same people who
contributed may want to use MySQL, but unless they are building their
own GPL system, their use of MySQL with their freely contributed code
inside is no longer available without paying a fee.

My guess is that many (most?) MySQL implementations today violate the
provisions of their license.  This is because many applications are
written for in-house consumption, simple web sites, etc. and those
applications are not GPL.  It's mostly commercial apps that end up
getting the license because businesses fear lawsuits more than
individuals do (something like music "piracy" in which end users copying
a CD to their disk drives are much less likely to be sued than if you
produce products that incorporate the music inside).

PostgreSQL is the way to go if you want a truly open source solution for
your needs, whether commercial, private or open source.

David

> applications are not GPL.  It's mostly commercial apps that end up
> getting the license because businesses fear lawsuits more than
> individuals do (something like music "piracy" in which end users copying
> a CD to their disk drives are much less likely to be sued than if you
> produce products that incorporate the music inside).
>
> PostgreSQL is the way to go if you want a truly open source solution for
> your needs, whether commercial, private or open source.

Anyone who knows me, knows that I am in no way a MySQL fan. However the
above statement is patently false.

MySQL is truly open source, and in fact is also considered Free Software
in the sense that the FSF considers it free.

Yes PostgreSQL is more flexible but to be fair to MySQL, they have
contributed the majority of their code if and they have to pay for it
somehow. Software engineers are not cheap.

Joshua D. Drake


>
> David
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>               http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
>


--

             === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
       Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
       Providing the most comprehensive  PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
                      http://www.commandprompt.com/

> This is because many applications are
> written for in-house consumption, simple web sites, etc. and those
> applications are not GPL.

In-house use cannot violate the GPL. The GPL requires that source be made
available without further restrictions, but only to those to whom the app is
distributed. The GPL does not impose any requirement for distribution of the
app. It seems to me that MySQL AB tries to game people's misunderstanding of
this, in order to lay claim to license fees for in-house projects.

--
Scott Ribe
scott_ribe@killerbytes.com
http://www.killerbytes.com/
(303) 722-0567 voice