MySQL Writes Exception for PHP in License

ryanjensen writes "According to an article on News.com, MySQL wrote an exception into its license to allow PHP to use its libraries. From the article: 'Because MySQL owns copyright to all the MySQL code, it can include additional license provisions to its software. The new provision, called the Free and Open Source Software License Exception, enables people to use MySQL client libraries with other open-source projects under other open-source licenses other than the GPL.'"

Comments

I don't see a problem with it...

[robslimo]

...but I'm sure some GPL zealots might.

To me, it looks like an issue of pragmatism and the MySQL folks apparently aren't hung up on religious adherence to GPL principles.

It's an issue of maximum applicability, to me.

Re:I don't see a problem with it...

[_|()|\|]

[MySQL] cannot be used from within libgda

While I disagree with MySQL's decision to GPL the client libraries, I don't think it's a significant problem. Libgda is LGPL, which is explicitly GPL compatible. Maintain the GPLed MySQL backend separately (which is easy to do with libgda's modular back ends), so the user has the choice to build a GPLed libgda with MySQL support.

Incidentally, I agree with other posters that MySQL's FOSS exception is practically worthless, due to the aggregation clause.

Re:I don't see a problem with it...

[Telex4]

but I'm sure some GPL zealots might.

What is wrong with being fanatically committed to the GPL and its principles? Seriously, it is all too easy to suggest that somebody who makes a stand is an extremist, when you yourself declare no standards and bend with the wind.

Maximum applicability is pretty vague. I'm guessing you mean that individuals, groups or for-profit organisations ought to use whatever licensing terms are most applicable... but to what end? Do you value the quantity of software, the technical quality, the economic/technical/social accessibility of software, the freedom of the user in relation to software, or perhaps something else?

You see, I'm what you might call a GPL zealot, and I'm of the opinion that as a technical tool with important social and political dimensions, the applicability of software stands in relation to its benefits to society. The GPL is a matter of pragmatism in that sense, but you're sticking to the narrow conception of value that I'm guessing is native to your culture, and labelling anyone who disagrees as a zealot. Isn't that just being irrationally and fanatically committed to a set of values without justification?

MySql

[ultrabot]

Why do people still keep using MySQL, in spite of their atrocious license changes? Or does everyone insist to keep on using the old version?

Postgresql is there, and is as free as can be.

BTW, why can't people just fork the old version of MySQL and use any license they want? Lack of skills?

Re:MySql

[Cecil]

Postgresql replication is regarded mostly experimental and is not properly integrated with the server. In larger MySQL deployments, replication is often used for load sharing (direct read only queries against any replica), and for backups.

Perhaps PostgreSQL is not as unreliable as MySQL, so it doesn't need replication nearly as badly. I have yet to see a slashdotted site running postgres fall over and die (although it does get slow). MySQL, on the other hand, how often have you seen it return blank screens, database-refused-connect errors?

How people get off calling MySQL "enterprise level" boggles my mind. It might as well be a fucking flat file that supports SQL. Speed at what cost?

Sorry. I just get so frustrated when my employer needs a database, everyone suggests "MySQL is the greatest" and then my employer goes to use it, finds it doesn't support referential integrity, doesn't support transactions, crashes or locks up or misbehaves under strain, doesn't do anything a database should do, gives up, and BUYS ORACLE INSTEAD.

MySQL is a toy, not enterprise level. It's nice, it's cute, it's relatively fast, but it's not always the best damn tool for the job. MySQL and PostgreSQL both have their niches. Learn them both, use them both.

There is no readily available workforce that has actual Postgresql knowledge.

Sadly true. There are too many MySQL zealots out there that see MySQL as the only possible solution to any problem.

Disclaimer: I am not a PostgreSQL zealot, though I may sound like one. I'm just fed up with the general consensus that MySQL is "the only serious open source database" while Postgres is basically ignored except as a curious sidenote.

Re:MySql

[Bromrrrrr]

Still their importance is overestimated - the bottom 80% of all applications are just fine with MySQLs MYISAM "autocommit style nontransactions" and deal without subqueries just fine.

No, in fact they are not fine with it, and unless you want to compensate me for every unnecessary line of code I had to write for using MySQL I will not agree with you :).

By using MySQL for such projects, I can be sure that just about everybody will be able to maintain the end result, which again, is not a database, but a management issue.

Quality, Price, Time. Pick any two. I can't blame you for going the route that gives you the most return and I won't, but I prefer quality in my work and I like to take pride in my work, MySQL as it is now won't give me that.

And this is probably the main gripe I have with the Postgresql people. The almost certainly are the better database people, but they are completely lacking vision regarding analysis of target market requirements (MySQL excels here!) and their marketing/community communication department is next to nonexisting.

And still, you know about postgress, you claim to know about databases and you tell your clients to go with MySQL?

Distros cannot take advantage of this

[tepples]

This license exception is BS. It requires that "The Derivative Work does not include or aggregate any part of the MySQL Server" where "the term 'include or aggregate' means to embed, integrate, bundle, aggregate, link, distribute on the same media or in the same packaging, provide with instructions to download or automate any of the preceding processes." This effectively means that any non-GPL program that links to MySQL client libraries cannot be distributed in an operating system distribution with the MySQL server. It also means that the documentation for such packages can't even mention "www.MySQL.com" because that would count as "provid[ing] with instructions to download".

Re:Distros cannot take advantage of this

[Homology]

This license exception is BS.

Indeed, and PHP users caring about GPL should worry about the tight coupling with a database server that has restrictions on binary distribution.

Love PHP!

[tarzan353]

I really enjoy using PHP for web development. I find that you can't beat scripting languages for ease of maintenance, quick turnaround time, and tweakability.

One of the big reasons I chose PHP was the availability of "LAMP": Linux, Apache, MySQL, PHP. I know these technologies have been around for years and will be around for many more years, so it's an easy sell to management. There's plenty of talk on the newgroups if you ever get stuck and PHP's online documentation with user comments is priceless. I think more documentation should follow this example.

That aside, the pure performance and reliability of the above is excellent. These technologies were made to work together, and from what I hear the teams even collaborate to make sure their stuff stays working together. It really shows.

Years ago I worked on ASP/SQL Server solutions and where you had to go with native code for high-performance with ASP, I find that with PHP it is high performance on its own.

Great job to everyone who has helped put together these technology solutions. A shining example of the high quality that can come out of the collaborative efforts of many.

Old news?

[Richard_at_work]

Im sure i saw this within the Mysql license over 2 months ago. Its good to see mysql making exceptions for other opensource projects, and acknowledging that there are other non gpl licenses. I wonder if the PHP crew will reevaluate the decision to remove mysql client from php5?

Will this boot MySQL from Debian?

[Mr. Darl McBride]

Debian prohibits discriminatory licenses. The exception makes this become a discriminatory license.

Will Debian now remove MySQL or move it to non-free?

~Darl

Re:A response to X?

[Homology]

Why not use PostgreSQL with it's much more liberal BSD license?

MySQL AB claims that the server is released under GPL, but then they add a restriction on distribution that hardly is compatible with GPL, as can be seen on MySQL download page :

You need to purchase commercial non-GPL MySQL licenses:

* If you distribute MySQL Software with your non open source software,

Re:A response to X?

[/ASCII]

How is that not GPL-compatible?

The GPL does not permit you to distribute GPL:ed code together with a prorietary product. If you want to do this, you obviously cannot use the GPL:ed version of MySQL, so this is not a restriction as much as a clarification.

If you do want to distribute MySQL with your OS, you can simply buy a copy of MySQL under a different license, which obviously MySQL AB can provide since they are the copyright holders of the code and can relicense it as they see fit.

Commercial Open Source?

[Anonymous Coward]

So, suppose I work on a community website using PHP/MySQL and I'd like to sell this, what are my options? Could I go with the GPL license, be sure to include all source code in the package (hey! PHP is a interpreted language anyway!) and get paid for installation support and distribution? What if I didn't sell it, but only used it on my own homepage?

Re:Popular != Better

[RLiegh]

Even in the realm of open-source databases, there are better choices. ... Anything that can be done with MySQL could be done as well or better with MS-Access.

Since the first example you reached for was Microsoft that makes me wonder if there really are better choices in the OSS/database world.

Embedded MySQL?

[randomErr]

So does this mean we could see an embedded version of MySQL in PHP? With PHP 5 embedding SQLLite MySQL stands to lose a good market share.

Re:A response to X?

[E_elven]

MySQL does not (although the obscure fbn builds are a bit better nowadays) implement SQL properly and is not ACID compliant. Many developers have had to rely on hacks to get their stuff working -or then have written bad code because MySQL allowed it. This is why some things need more extensive rewriting. In addition, I believe there are some proprietary products that use MySQL -to achieve the same effect, one would need to write a program from scratch, presumably.

Re:What people fail to mention is....

[scheme]

First off, almost all those things you mention aren't an issue in MySQL anymore. Maybe back in 3.23, but as far as 5.0 and 4.1 go, they've disappeared. MySQL has always been built with speed in mind. It deviates from the SQL standard when necessary and has been slower to implement all of the standard, but! Everything that's implemented is done with speed in mind. So it has a huge speed advantage over almost every database out there.

Why do mysql supporters always bring up how version 4.1 or 5 will support a feature. It's utter bs to compare features that are available on a stable release that have been around for several years with features that are in either in alpha code (mysql 4.1) or a future version (mysql 5.0). Not to mention that features that were supposed to have been in mysql 4.0 have been pushed back to 4.1 and may get pushed back again.

By that logic, postgresql has point in time restore (PITR) support which mysql hasn't even mentioned. PITR lets you restore the database to a given point in time. E.g. your program went crazy and deleted a bunch of entries that you need. With PITR you restore the database back to just before the data was deleted. Postgresql 7.5 is going to support this.

Incidentally, mysql's speed seems to be missing if you start looking at performance with multiple clients querying the database or when queries get more complicated. Mysql also tends to be okay with incorrect or wrong behaviour if that increases speed.

hmm.. bsd license...

[ShadowRage]

isnt the bsd license opensource?

because.. this could be a loophole in the license.. since a company can take bsd source code and close source it.. thus using mysql libraries in their proprietary works.. right?

correct me if I'm wrong.. I dont focus on licensing issues much.

Open Source, GPL and multiple licenses

[greggman]

Someone explain to me how this all works.

One of the big supposedly pluses to GPLed code is that many people can contibute. So, if I GPL the code AND try to release it under another license then the non-GPLed version can not have any of the benefits of contributions, bug fixes, etc from the GPLed version since those contributions are GPLed and not available under the other license. Those contributions belong to the individual contributors, not the person or team that made the original code.