Internal Email on Why a Software Company Migrates Away from MySQL | Hacker News Reader

Internal Email on Why a Software Company Migrates Away from MySQL

cloudave.com

19 pointsyarapavan13 comments

But an app written on top of MySQL, even though it connects over the wire and a JDBC driver, has to be GPL – why, simply because MySQL decreed it so; they did it because it would make it commercially convenient for them.

So says the internal email. I don't usually see this much confusion packed into such a small space.

But an app written on top of MySQL, even though it connects over the wire and a JDBC driver, has to be GPL – why, simply because MySQL decreed it so

WHAT!?

Assuming the email is from a US-based company, this statement is entirely false. The GPL is a copyright license, which means that no matter what claims Oracle makes, it cannot restrict any action unless copyright normally forbids it.

Later in the same email, the author goes and rambles on about some invented Torvalds-vs-Stallman dichotomy, which makes me think this is less about "they might sue us" and more "fuck the hippies!".

Aren't the drivers under the GPL and not LGPL? If I distribute and app with GPL code linked, doesn't that trigger the GPL's source requirements for linked code? That is big difference between LGPL and GPL.

That depends on what you mean by "linked".

If the binary you compiled contains third-party content, or anything derived from thus, then it's subject to that content's license. There's three common ways this happens for C libraries: static linking, inlining, and copy-paste. Other languages might have more (C++, Haskell) or fewer (Python, Ruby) ways, depending on implementation.

If the binary doesn't contain anything derived from third-party code, then it's not covered by third-party licenses, and you can do whatever you want with it. If there's no binary at all, then unless you've copied someone else's work into your source code, there's also no infringement.

For example, lets say you write a Python script which uses GNU Readline (which is GPL'd). Your script is under the BSD 4-clause license, which is not GPL-compatible. Distributing the script is perfectly legal, because the only license covering it is BSD4. However, if you (or anybody else) copied GPL'd code into the script itself, distributing it would be illegal. Additionally, if you used something like py2exe to bundle your script (and all its dependencies) into a single binary, then the result is illegal to distribute (because GPL + BSD4 = :( ).

Some people have, understandably, gotten a bit confused by this; the confusion is not helped by cranks (on both sides) claiming that the GPL is "infections", "viral", or otherwise acts like some sort of legal contagion. The GPL is a copyright license; it can only grant rights, not take them away.

The actual case of MySQL is a bit murkier; they've put forward some truly bizarre claims in the past, such as that the MySQL protocol itself is copyrighted and any reimplementation is illegal. Probably no court would uphold this view, but Oracle has much much more money than most individuals. They don't have to win, they just have to bury you in lawyer's fees until you go bankrupt.

I get the feeling that with most companies we are talking binaries. Readline is a pretty good example, it is GPL and it was my understanding that even a dynamically linked C program needed to be GPL compatible to use it (thus the reason for the LGPL). Am I wrong in your opinion?

Also, the recent WordPress theme issue probably mucks this up even more from an understanding point of view. Some said even if the themes hadn't used GPL code but simply called existing routines, they needed to be GPL. Where do come down on that?

it was my understanding that even a dynamically linked C program needed to be GPL compatible to use it (thus the reason for the LGPL). Am I wrong in your opinion?

IMO, yes. If you compile a C program which dynamically links to Readline, and then distribute it, you're not distributing any part of Readline itself. The GPL does not apply because you do not need permission from anybody to distribute your own code.

In theory, GPL'd libraries are fine for proprietary applications to depend on (via dynamic linking). However, many vendors like to statically link their binaries so they don't have to worry about shared library incompatibility. This is where the LGPL comes in. A vendor could (for example) statically link GTK+ into their application, so they don't get complaints about somebody who tries to run it from a system without GTK+ installed. If they linked against Readline, they'd have to rely on the local system libraries.

Of course, it's possible to dynamically link a proprietary application against a GPL'd shared library, and then distribute them both. But now the GPL does apply, because GPL'd code is being distributed, and it's quite possible a judge could decide you're trying to play games to avoid the license.

Also, the recent WordPress theme issue probably mucks this up even more from an understanding point of view.

WordPress is a source of misinformation regarding the GPL (see below)

Some said even if the themes hadn't used GPL code but simply called existing routines, they needed to be GPL. Where do come down on that?

IMO, this is incorrect. The argument is that the WordPress API can be copyrighted, which (in the US at least) not a position held by the courts. If it were, any project which imitated an existing API (Wine of Win32, GnuTLS of OpenSSL, editline of Readline) would be illegal.

GPL misinformation originates from two sources, broadly:

* Those that want to distort the GPL's purpose, to transform it from a shield into shackles -- WordPress and MySQL are two examples. They release GPL'd code in the hopes of creating a "community" to mine for cheap bug fixes, but intentionally spread GPL fear so paying customers are less likely to download the Free version.

* Those who are opposed to Free software in general, who do not like the idea of users having full control over their property. Usually large companies -- prime examples are Microsoft (especially a few years ago) and Apple today. A few individual trolls/cranks exist here also, but they're mercifully rare.

I think it is a good idea to move away from MySQL. That being said, this article is brim full of things that are factually wrong, and misinterpretations of what famous software authors have said about their software's licenses.

Hackers need to think about this stuff far enough so that they do not arrive at factually incorrect conclusions.

You'd think a CEO could afford a copyright attorney...

This is by far the best quote I've heard about reasons people liked these technologies before Oracle but not anymore:

"So unless we want to pay large and increasing amounts of money to Oracle, which is a mathematical certainty because it involves Larry Ellison and Money, we should move out of MySQL. Do we want to work hard to ship more and more money to Oracle?"

I've never seen the GPL extended to sites/services using a GPL'd service.

I find it hard to believe an mysql community server in a web application stack would be threatened by Oracle's changes.

Web applications are safe (no distribution), but shipped solutions (server, desktop) require a different license unless you release source to your app in a GPL compatible way. The drivers being GPL are the big hit plus all the work to say the protocol is also GPL (not sure on how that works).

I think the whole Oracle situation should be a lesson in how the GPL/Commercial license scheme plays out in a "hostile"(1) take over. I am really not sure how this needs to be managed or what assurances a company should ask for.

1) hostile to the software, not at the company level - think competing product

so excuse my ignorance on the issue, but does this mean as any of us starting projects/companies (even commercial) using mysql that we have to pay up now? what does the future look like for it..

No, it doesn't mean you have to pay up now.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com