I view the idea of pure GPL
when used in libraries as a overly idealistic concept that doesn't really fit with people trying to develop software for the real world.
GPL is fine for libraries, if it has exceptions for building on top of it (but if has that, why aren't you using LGPL...), but without that, only other open source projects can really use it, and few of them at that will use the code.
Public domain, BSD, MIT, Apache etc are much more useful and free for the purposes of 99% of the world for libraries.
MySQL AB did not explicitly set out REAL exemptions to make lots of development legal, however they were wink wink nod nod allowing all sorts of things, so now the developers who built on it are likely screwed, as they need to have oracle issue the same sort of wink wink nod nod statements themselves, or explicitly relicense the whole thing.
MySQL is the HUGE competitor for Oracle's main product on the medium sized deployment target. I for one hope the regulators don't approve if Oracle isn't forced to change the licensing to more link Linux (link exception) or to a more permissive license (Apache/MIT/BSD), like the de facto licensing regime was.
>. It's just that since it was an allowable strategy for MySQL AB, it should be allowable for Oracle Corporation, too
I thought it shady as hell back when MySQL AB was independent too, but the issue is that Oracle puts out a competing product. By buying MySQL, they basically acquire their main competitor and have power to jack up the prices everyone pays for DB software in the simple case, or guide the MySQL product to areas to make it less competitive with Oracle in the more subtle case (thereby making the public less well served).