Is MySQL Planning a Change of Tune?

Iggy writes "After reading the article on 'The MySQL License Question' by Timothy R. Butler at Open for Business I just have to wonder, is this company's wording on the MySQL site indicating the company is backing away from Free Software, specifically, the GPL? Great reading and certainly thought provoking."

Comments

Re:No, they're just confused by the legalese

[cbrocious]

I disagree. I think that they're using legalese to try and mask that they're moving away from true F/OSS. It's been happening for a while now.

Re:First Useful Post

[borgdows]

Consistency in a database is important too, whatever they choose I'll stick with Postgresql.

PostgreSQL

[thammoud]

People will switch to PostgreSQL faster than the MySQL folks can type GPL back into the license. They will be crazy.

Re:PostgreSQL

[BiggerIsBetter]

There's only one thing that I like about MySQL... SAP-DB. - er, MaxDB, and even that's sufficiently different from MySQL database to avoid the whole PHP/FanBoy mess. However, Postgresql is "good enough" for 90% of apps. Oracle is certainly good enough for the remaining 10%.

I reckon that now that MySQL is dealing with one of the big boys (SAP) they think they're the shiznit. They think they have the PHP and web server-side arena sewn up, so now they're trying to assert themselves in the larger market.

Roughly put, they're setting themselves up for a fall. MySQL database might be owned by a company, but it was tested and supported by the wider community. If MySQL starts screwing with their supporters they'll lose them to Postgresql, Firebird, or whatever. Much of the software using MySQL is opensource, and it can be ported to another database just as soon as the need is there.

Nothing new here.

[Anonymous Coward]

You've always been able to buy a commercial MySQL license for a commercial app. Personally, I'd be using PostgreSQL for any serious database work in any case (assuming Oracle or other commercial database isn't a requirement) -- it's much closer to what I'd expect from a database than MySQL.

Nothing to be concerned about here, folks. Move along. Move along.

We will just fork it

[Anonymous Coward]

If they change the license, can't we just fork from the last GPL release?

Re:We will just fork it

[VirexEye]

The classic "farewell and fork you!"

Forking?

[headkase]

Couldn't anyone create their own fork from the last GPL'd source?

Well...

[joseph schmo]

I can't get to the article (/.), but assuming this is not FUD:

With all the "Postgres is so awesome" stuff I keep reading (well okay, mostly on here), if MySQL backs away from open source, it could be the beginning of the end for them with "the geeks" (ie. us).

I'm not that familiar with Postgres, but I just checked and their website says:

The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no intention of changing it.

Sounds good to me!

Re:Well...

[SlowMovingTarget]

Well... I did read the article, and it sounded to me that some web page author got overly enthusiastic about when people ought to buy a license for MySQL. Reading anything more into it would seem to be sensationalism to drive people to the clipping (IMHO).

Good for them...

[SnapShot]

If a prorietary software vendor wants to package MySQL with their product I'm glad MySQL AG is getting a few bucks out of it.

It doesn't seem to negatively affect the free software developers.

I've always liked the idea that you could release a product under a Free license but keep the option to sell versions to companies as well.

I realize that this doesn't answer the question of whether the GPL itself allows this kind of dual license but it seems to me that TrollTech does something similar and that has never bothered me either.

Re:Good for them...

[AKAImBatman]

See, here's the problem. MySQL AG seems to have reinterpreted the GPL to mean that any use of their software means that your software should be open source. Run a small website with the MySQL database? If all the source to that site is not GPLed, you're in violation. That's despite the fact that your site should be a clear and separate product from MySQL.

MySQL has made sure to cement their interpretation in two ways:

1. They "purchased" the LGPL JDBC driver and relicensed it as GPL. This ensures that physical linking will occur with their software (and thus the warning in the article about "circumventing" the drivers).

2. They keep their own variation of SQL (with the #$^@ing backticks) so that software must be designed for use with MySQL. While some of us use config files on a per driver basis, many software developers have fallen for the bait and tied their software to MySQL. Doing so invalidates certain GPL clauses that may allow you to get around the "linking" issue.

It's MySQL

[Anonymous Coward]

not YourSQL.

If they wanted you to own it, they would have named it that way.

Re:It's MySQL

[Tokerat]

You just named the fork.

Re:It's MySQL

[ejaw5]

This SQL is YourSQL
This SQL is MySQL

MySQL's changin' Licenses
YourSQL's a G P L

This SQL was made for you and me.

I guess this would make it...

[deathcloset]

TheirSQL

*snicker snicker*

Read the article folks

[ttfkam]

It went on and on about how much they like the GPL over all other licenses. I'm no MySQL fan, but for fuck's sake...

That said, this statement made me chuckle a bit:

The main point he made to us is that his company believes "strongly in Open Source." The company has actually tried to increase the freedoms provided by the GPL, Urlocker asserted, with the "MySQL FOSS exception" that allows some Open Source Initiative approved licenses, that are incompatible with the GPL, to still make use of the GPL licensed version of MySQL.

Let me get this straight. Because it allows linking with PHP and Apache -- two systems which incidentally are fundamental to MySQL's continued success -- this is proof of their love of free software and freedom? Call me cynical, but it sounds more like proof of their love of avoiding irrelevance.

Can you imagine?

MySQL AB: We are pure GPL!
Developer1: Isn't the GPL incompatible with the Apache/BSD style of license?
Developer2: According to the FSF it is.
Developer 1: Aren't the Apache web server and PHP under Apache/BSD styles of license?
Developer 2: PHP used to be GPL, but yeah, now they're both like that.
Developer 1: So if I sell a complete package with all three, I'm legally in trouble?
Developer 2: Looks like it.
Developer 1: Well, I guess I'll install PostgreSQL then.
MySQL AB: MySQL FOSS exception!
Developers 1 and 2: Wow! What nice guys. They're really sticking their neck out for us on that one. Thanks!

Don't be such sheep

[fishdan]

I'm not saying that MySQL is the greatest thing since sliced bread, but Open For Business makes their living off of commenting on FREE software, which MySQL is not, nor has every really claimed to be. They sell advertising. They have a financial incentive to claim that

the sky is falling

MySQL is going to screw everyone.

Just because one person's twist on that interview says that MySQL is about to turn evil, doesn;t mean it's true. Read the article, not just the /. headline

I actually think that the article is very fair, but it's considerably more in depth than most people who only read the /. headlines will know.

Re:Strange really....

[EvilTwinSkippy]

It's not that I "refuse" to learn anything else. It's that 3 years ago when I started my project I needed replication THEN. I needed a windows port THEN. I needed TCL bindings THEN. And I'm not going to re-write 250,000 lines of code because someone tells me my perfectly working system is inferior.

And you guys are yelling awful loud to have anything meaninful to say.

Free software

[Sir Homer]

The article states that this doesn't effect free software at all. Only commerical software that links to MySQL requires a licence, as it always has been.

Re:Free software

[Bastian]

The issue is that the information MySQL AB puts on their site advising people about which license to choose isn't entirely in sync with what the GPL really states. Basically, MySQL AB is trying to scare businesses who weren't planning on violating the GPL into purchasing a commercial license of MySQL just incase.

This even comes out in the article when they talk about applications that talk to a MySQL database but don't actually link against any MySQL (or other GPL) libraries being a gray area. There is no gray area in sight on this issue - if there is no mixing of code, the license is not applicable and there cannot be a GPL violation.

MySQL AB's assertion here is akin to their claiming that you're running dangerously close to violating the GPL when you develop commercial software that runs on GNU/Linux. Yes, your app speaks to GNU software constantly, depends fundamentally on it, and is completely useless without said GNU software, but nobody is claiming you're anywhere near violationg the GPL. It's a pretty damn hypocritical argument for them to make, too, since there is a build of their software that runs on (works closely with) GNU/Linux that they do not release under the GPL. (I consider the GPL and commercial versions of MySQL to be different products because they admit there are minor differences between the two due to licensing issues with the libraries MySQL depends on.)

I understand that MySQL is trying to secure a profit for themselves, but doing it by scaring folks away isn't going to help very much. They'll get more chance of a profit from me by putting out an effort to implement all of the features a lot of corporate users have come to expect from a bunch of their competitors and being a bit more well-behaved in terms of SQL standards compliance, thus making potential business customers more interested in tightly coupling applications with MySQL in the first place.

Recent Changes to Client License

[Unknown Relic]

Let's not forget about the recent changes of the MySQL client to use the GPL instead of the LGPL, since such a change hardly suggests that they're looking to dump the GPL. This change was widely publicised, as it caused issues (which have now been resolved) with other non-GPL open source applications which previously shipped with the client software - PHP being the prime example.

On the other hand, I do think MySQL really wants to push their commercial license as they "recommend" it for everyone who use MySQL in a commercial environment, even though their dual licensing scheme only requires the purchase of a license if you plan to be distributing MySQL itself. It'll be interesting to see how this all unfolds, but I don't think the GPL version of MySQL is going to go anywhere, at least not for non-commercial users. While commercial users may face stronger "recommendations" to purchase licenses, I don't see any actual changes to the license requiring a license for commercial use without distribution. Doing this would shut out millions of entry level hosting providers, and it wouldn't be long until MySQL's massive market share fell to alternatives such as Postgres or SQLite.

Re:Recent Changes to Client License

[rhaas]

I think the change from the LGPL to the GPL was designed precisely for the purpose of forcing more people to purchase commericial licenses. Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, under the LPGL, you can link your (propriety) code against their libraries without having to distribute your source code. Under the GPL, this is not the case - linking is not "mere aggregation" and you now have to distribute the source, cough up $$$, or stop upgrading MySQL. If they were distributing the code ONLY under xGPL, the change would clearly be an endorsement of F/OSS, but because of the dual license, it seems more like an attempt to restrict what users can do with their software.

Re:Brings to mind a question....

[YOU LIKEWISE FAIL IT]

I'll give you my reading, because the other followup didn't catch all your questions:

You are welcome to license your new versions or the same version under licenses other than the GPL, because the GPL is non-exclusive. You can re-license the original code to yourself, if you feel like getting that far into it, under any license you like. What you cannot do is revoke the GPL rights on copies already distributed. This parallel licensing, where projects are released under the GPL and then sublicensed to private entities under non free licenses in exchange for bling is probably ( imho ) the best way to make money on a free software project.

Anyone else have a better grasp of the issues?

YLFI

Re:Brings to mind a question....

[offpath3]

If no one has gotten a copy of it yet, then they can re-license the code however they want and no one would be the wiser.

This is actually an unfortunate misconception about the GPL. By releasing code under the GPL, you are by no means giving up your ownership over the copyright under that code. As the owner of the copyright, you're welcome to do anything you want with it, including licensing it under any other license you see fit, and MySQL does just this. They offer MySQL under two separate licenses, one GPL, one not, and you can pick which one you want to use.

One more reason to use standard interfaces

[davidwr]

On my last project, I used OBCD specifically so I could use one DBMS today and I or my in-house customers could replace it with another one later with minimal effort.

There are other ways of doing the same task, such as using wrapper functions for your DB calls.

This approach isn't appropriate for every project, but before you start coding, you should ask yourself "will this ever be used on another DBMS, what can I do now to save myself work later, and what will it cost me in terms of schedule, functionality, performance, etc."

Re:Please stop

[OmniVector]

i'd rather everyone stop coding strictly towards one database api, and use abstracted interfaces like PEAR, ado.net, jdbc, odbc, etc.

Re:Who the hell is we?

[mumblestheclown]

Shhh! You're exposing the real cracks in the OSS model!

Commercial Software

a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
money! then
more guys then
a few more products then
more money!
then more products (some good some bad) then
more money! then
more guys then..

OSS:

a few guys then
a few products then
early success then
fame and glory for a few guys then
more guys then
a few more products then
some fame for more guys then
maybe some people will join here and there then
a few bug fixes and patches then
not really any fame for the new guys then
people just stop caring because..
it suddenly dawns the german dork who spent 3 months in his basement writing a slighly faster screen refresh algorithm for some OSS spreadsheet program that has 1% market and that is pretty much only due to some for-profit entity working to the letter but not the spirit of the GPL that a) deep down, nobody gives a damn about where their spreadsheet screen refresh algoritm comes from and b) that there is an outside, and that even chasing girls unsuccessfully is better than working for redhat/ibm/whatever without getting paid.

ODBC is not "circumvention"

[justins]

I don't think it would be overstating the case to say that "Zack Urlocker, MySQL's vice president of marketing" is either a liar or doesn't understand the application of the GPL with regards to client/server software:

On the other hand, while Urlocker said the company is not adding restrictions on to the GPL, he felt that attempting to, as he put it, "circumvent" the GPL by communicating with the database using a third-party tool and TCP/IP or another protocol was a gray area and while perhaps following the letter, it was not following the spirit of the General Public License.

Communicating with a database via "TCP/IP or another protocol," such as ODBC, is not in any way a circumvention of the GPL. This is what ODBC is for, for heaven's sake, there's nothing sneaky about it.

Following MySQL's moronic licensing innuendo, you would be required to use GPLed software to talk to a GPLed web server. Unfortunately even the unixODBC guy who was quoted didn't make the point that connecting to a database server from a client program (on a remote machine or on the same machine) using ODBC is morally equivalent to connecting from a client program to a web server using HTTP, and so the same rules must apply. The FSF guy didn't make that point either. I can understand why these free software folks feel some need to stick up for each other but someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of all this licensing idiocy, it doesn't help anyone.

"New Offerings on the Horizon"

[ttfkam]

Speaking of the new releases made possible by MySQL's dual licensing business model [as though they would stop all development otherwise], Urlocker pointed out that MySQL 4.1 is presently in beta and "should be released for production" within four to five weeks. According to information provided by the company, the new release will feature OpenGIS geographical data support [just like PostgreSQL and Oracle have done for some time now?] and the ability to send multiple SQL statements via a C language MySQL API call and receive the results back at once [yup, even though batch SQL processing isn't all that new, just use our proprietary C API and leave that nasty old ODBC behind], among other additions and enhancements [which by and large have been done by every other database vendor before us].

MySQL 5.0, the first major update to the product since the MySQL 4.0 "production" release was announced in early 2003, is presently in the alpha stage of development. "New stored procedures and views" are among the features that this upcoming release will include [even though they publicly made a point of telling developers how little you needed them just a short while ago]. Some other interesting features may also make it into the code before the release, but Urlocker said that his company prefers to "under promise and over deliver." [Well they've certainly delivered on the under promise part.]

This was fun! It kinda makes me want to write a timeline of when MySQL developers would publicly and loudly assert that certain features were not needed and compare it another timeline that proudly announces the formerly useless feature in their newest revision.

Might be as much fun as reading the MySQL gotchas pages. "Foreign keys only serve to slow database engines down." Wait a couple of years... "MySQL 4: Now with new enterprise features like foreign key support!" Wash. Rinse. Repeat. ...to get the stink off.

Those who forget the past are doomed to extended use of a debugger.

Re:"New Offerings on the Horizon"

[danharan]

I remember a few years ago, a total nOOb, trying to figure out what's what in the database world. I had read about how we don't really need all those complex features that slow down databases, and believed it.

Then I worked for a company that required Oracle for its database, because nothing else on the market could possibly handle what they needed done. And they put me to work on some of their stored procedures. ouch.

I learned what I needed about database normalization, and I realized just how much of a toy MySQL was.

That they added essential features is great, but that they still think they're unnecessary shows they have NO CLUE what challenges you get in big developments. And if they flip-flopped on the features, will they change the license?

The most promising db right now for people like me is obviously PostgreSQL. No license hassles is just gravy.

Re:Brings to mind a question....

[conradp]

IANAL, but...

Firstly, certainly all previous versions of the software licensed under the GPL can continue to be used under the GPL.

Secondly, if the copyrights to the software are all solely owned by one company or by a small group of people then they can re-release the software under as many different licensing schemes as they want. They own the copyrights to the code, so they could decide to make all future versions of the code closed-source, or whatever. Anyone in the free software community would be free to create a "forked" version of the software based on the last GPL version and continue to develop it independently and release it under the GPL.

Thirdly, if the developers have accepted contributions from GPL folks without also getting ownership of the copyrights to the contributed code, then they probably are not allowed to take the current code based and make a version of it with any license that's more restrictive than the GPL, since the only license they have to the other people's code is the GPL itself, which forbids adding restrictions.

Finally, this is all a red herring in this particular case because the MySQL folks are just publishing their take on what the GPL means on their web site - they're not actually adding any restrictions. Of course, any company that sells software for a living will bias the explanations of the GPL on their web site as far as they can towards making you think that you have to buy their software, but the real license is still the GPL, and their "interpretation" of the GPL holds little or no legal standing.

GPL and Commerical Licenses Impossible?

[greggman]

This whole topic reminds me of question to which I've never gotten a good answer.

One of the supposed benefits of Open Source in general is that lots of people can contribute, add features, fix bugs. This includes the GPL.

GPLed code and GPLed contributions stay GPLed forever.

MySQL is GPLed. MySQL sells a commercial license. Do you really believe the commerical version of MySQL has ZERO GPLed contributions to it? No bug fixes from anyone outside AB? No feature additions from anyone outside AB? While I admit it's remotely possible, if there are no outside contributions to MySQL then what's the point of it being GPLed? If there are then it's illegal for them to redistribute a version of MySQL with the GPLed contributions in it under some other license.

MySQL AB Comments

[martenmickos]

Thanks for all the feedback!

Let me here present the background logic behind our licensing policy and software policy in general.

MySQL AB is probably the world's largest company that has published all its software under the GPL licence. Over the years we have expanded and developed the business that David Axmark and Michael "Monty" Widenius started in the 90's.

Thanks to our business model, we have been able to hire more developers and make more code available under GPL. For instance, last year we acquired a highly advanced clustered database from Ericsson which we made available under GPL for the free and open source software (FOSS) communities in the world. Monty and David continue to be in the driving seat in these issues.

While being fully committed to FOSS and to GPL, we get more and more enterprise customers who want us to provide commercial licences and commercial services. They also want easy guidelines on open source licensing and when to do what.

In our attempt to make open source licensing easy to understand for enterprise customers who know little about the topic, we clearly have stated things that have upset those who know the licensing in detail. My apologies for this.

I hope you will have understanding with this, and that you will appreciate that we listen to you and make changes as we go. For instance, a misfortunate wording regarding "distribution" and more specifically "internal distribution" has now been removed from our licensing pages.

But more feedback is welcome, because open source licensing just is not easy to explain. If you have a better wording than we have come up with, please let us know.

It is interesting to debate licensing issues, and we do want to do it right. At the same time, we continue to experience that most practical situations are for the most part clear. FOSS projects and use of MySQL clearly falls under the GPL, and enterprise customers invariably want a commercial relationship with us. There undoubtedly is some gray zone, but it is not enormous, and we do all we can to sort it out.

I'd say that our FOSS Exception (which admittely took time to author) is a great example of removing gray zones and impossible situations. Some open source licences are by definition incompatible with each other, but with our FOSS Exception we have made sure that MySQL under GPL can live side by side with open source software of other licences.

There is much more to write on the subject, but I will stop for now. Feedback continues to be very much welcome - publicly or directly to me (I am sure you can guess my email address).

Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB

P.S. Sometimes I see comments about our VC financing and where that may lead us. Here is some info for the interested reader: We brought in some 13.5 million euros last year in venture funding. As of today, we have barely touched the money. We are growing fast, but we don't want to grow too fast and risk losing the unique culture of our company. Monty and David and the other founders continue to be the biggest owners in the company. And to be on the safe side, we have made sure through a shareholders agreement that all shareholders stay committed to our open source / free software philosophy. I would claim that MySQL AB could serve as an example of how open source and VC funding can work well together. And I hope the world will see a whole armada of successful open source businesses in the next years. The market is in need of disruptive technologies, and this community has them.

Re:MySQL AB Comments

[Hobbex]

The only valid complaint here is that your marketing person claimed that connecting to the database via a socket was a "grey area" in regards to linking. It is not a "grey area", and never has been - doing so makes the client no more of a derivative work then IE is a derivative work off Apache. Claiming otherwise is downright deceitful.

Re:MySQL AB Comments

[martenmickos]

Thx for the comment. We (MySQL AB) are not the judge on this. Therefore we are careful not to make statements that may be oversimplifications, as that may mislead our customers. Our comment on connections was based on the GPL FAQ on FSF.org:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation

It says this (boldfacing by me):

"What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged)."

and this:

"By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."

But, again, lets remember that only a court of law can take an affirmative position on this. FSF and MySQL AB can only provide their best advice and their presentation of their intent.

Please also note that we are very happy when our users use MySQL under the GPL (as /. does!), but we don't see it as our responsibility to provide a detailed legal analysis to every user. We proudly think we have done a fantastic deed in licensing MySQL under the GPL in the first place, and we think it is only fair for us to assume that the free software / open source community needs little help in coming to terms with the GPL.

I hope this sheds some light on our logic. Many people look to us as the foremost authorities on the GPL. But that's not what we are. We are a software development organisation that provides software to the FOSS community and to commercial users, and that provides additional commercial services to the commercial users. We hope we can be a role model for other open source developers who want to stick to their FOSS principles and ALSO build a great and lasting business.

Marten

Re:MySQL AB Comments

[jadavis]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the client libraries licensed as GPL?

This makes it difficult to develop an application with MySQL support, even under a FOSS license like the BSD license, without paying for a commercial MySQL license. Merely providing a MySQL database driver seems to violate the GPL if the application is not GPL.

As I understand it, this is more restrictive than even proprietary databases. As evidence I point out that PHP includes many database drivers (proprietary and FOSS), but does not bundle the MySQL one anymore.

Also, it creates a significant "grey area" when your language of choice (e.g. PHP) provides a driver. Must the PHP app then be GPL as well?

Am I being confused by FUD or are these real points of confusion and concern?

I am really only concerned with the client libraries. I'm certainly comfortable with the server itself being GPL, and I am grateful to MySQL AB for contributing so much code in a FOSS license. Client libraries are often LGPL, and it confuses me when MySQL AB does not follow that norm.

Re:MySQL AB Comments

[martenmickos]

The client libraries are licensed under GPL.

In addition we have issued a FOSS Exception which states that you are free to mix our client libraries (under GPL) with other FOSS licensed stuff, such as PHP.

Marten

Re:Brings to mind a question....

[lspd]

This parallel licensing, where projects are released under the GPL and then sublicensed to private entities under non free licenses in exchange for bling is probably ( imho ) the best way to make money on a free software project.

Horse-puckey...

It's a conflict of interest that consistently leads to abuses.

In the present case MySQL is pretending that GPL software is basicly non-commercial use only. It's a straight out lie, no matter how they dance around the issue. The Free Software Foundation is being very kind in stating that MySQL "marketing literature" isn't their concern.

MySQL AB isn't alone though.... Trolltech advances the idea that software you create using the GPL version of QT can't be reused in a commercial product. Their wording is careful, but the idea is wrong. You own the code you write, regardless of what libraries you used. Remove those libraries and you can do whatever you want. Their dual-licensing has also resulted in Linux PDAs which can't be synced to Linux desktops. Way to go...

PHP-Nuke has tried to pretend that various bits of code and advertising constitute a license declaration under the GPL. Basicly, GPL == adware. It's nonsense. Moreover, the PHP-Nuke advertising makes no mention that PHP-Nuke is itself a fork of Thatware.

ReiserFS, like PHPNuke wants to pretend that GPL software is adware for commercial products. Hans flipped out when Debian trimmed the marketing spiel out of mkfs.reiserfs. It's obviously not the intent of the license text clause of the GPL to advertise the benefits of non-free versions of GPL software.

Dual licensing is a bad idea. The only way you sell the commercial version is to make the GPL version unfriendly to business. Since the GPL was intended as a business friendly license, you're forced to misrepresent the GPL to sell licenses. If you want a dual-licensing business, don't use the GPL as the free license. Pick something that lets everyone know, from the get-go, that you're a commercial house intent on selling commercial software.

Did anyone ready the article?

[cluge]

It appears that the folks building MySQL are even MORE pro GPL than a rabid /.er! I know it's hard to believe, but unlike the very bad description of the artcle given above (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) the actual text of the article shows that the company is pro GPL. It isn't backing away from the liscence, but tryng to be sure that users of GPL software uphold that very lisence.

Whats interesting is that this affects open source, but not necessarily GPL projects. Asterisk which use a different lisence have removed MySQL libraries because of this conflict.
From their documentation:
"We were recently contacted by MySQL and informed that the MySQL client
libraries are now under GPL license and not LGPL license as before.

Since Asterisk does allow exceptions to GPL, we are removing MySQL support
from standard Asterisk. We will, where appropriate, make it available via
a separate package which will only be usable when Asterisk is used completely
within GPL (i.e. not in conjunction with G.729, OpenH.323, etc). We
apologize for the confusion.

Is this a case of the GPL being a bad thing?

cluge