Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.
Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections.
- - -
So it seems that an important discussion has got onto the wrong track due to incorrect input information.
Florian Müller is NOT a MySQL developer. He is an independent software developer who ALSO is an advisor to MySQL.
And when Florian mentiones the patents, he is only quoting another source.
Florian Müller is engaged (successfully, I might add) in opposing the legalisation of software patents in EU. By doing this, he is doing all of us within the free software and open source world an enormous favour.
I am afraid that many of the postings on this topic are based on erroneous input data. Hope this helps to set things straight.
This is an interesting question, with two interpretations:
1. A software vendor must NOT present its interpretation of the GPL, because that could be deemed by others as "misrepresentation" of the GPL.
2. A software vendor SHOULD indeed, as the owner of the source code, present its own interpretation of the GPL.
You seem to prefer alternative 2, but most participants in this debate on Slashdot seem to prefer alternative 1. We try to stick to 1 (and most times when we go into 2, someone reacts negatively).
Thx for the idea. One school would say we should do it because others are doing it on other operating systems. But another school would say that we should specifically NOT do it, because the beauty of our product is that it runs on any operating system and can be easily integrated with nearly anything.
We nowadays work together with the vendors of commercial applications to enable their apps to work with MySQL and to promote their apps in the MySQL ecosystem. The policy has not changed, but the fact that the client libraries are under GPL (and not LGPL from which we changed 2 years ago when we launched version 4) gives a more clearcut situation. You are free to embed the GPL libraries in open source applications and you are welcome to embed the commercially licensed libraries under commercial terms.
As for your GPL question, here is a brief answer. I am not a lawyer and MySQL AB is not authorised to advice anyone in legal matters, but practically this is what you need to know about the GPL: The reciprocity requirement (i.e. the requirement to make your own software available under GPL also) kicks in when you distribute derivative works. The keywords both start with a d - distribution and derivative works. If both are in force, then the reciprocity requirement kicks in. Otherwise not. Then there are debates about the exact legal interpretation of those words, but I'll leave that to experts. Hope this helps.
Don't care what anyone says, you guys are a mainstay for web developers everywhere! MySQL is practically everyones first database. I love you guys... and not just in the platonic sense either!
Thank you! We hope we can continue to be useful to our millions of users.
MySQL AB has never threatened to sue another company, except in the one case some years ago when WE got sued for no apparent reason.
To your question: We have nothing against companies who want to redistribute our GPL-licensed code without paying a licence fee. On the contrary, we encourage it. The requirement we have, and which we think is nothing but fair, is that such a company must adhere to the GPL licence.
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.
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:
"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.
That's an interesting discussion that would warrant more than a Slashdot posting.
Briefly: * we have had tremendous benefit in the enterprise market of just having the money (not using it) * we have got great value out of our VCs (advice, introductions, etc.) * any company will need cash reserves for unforeseen situations and for being able to act fast if an opportunity emerges * as we continue to expand, we will be making investments out of the funding we received
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.
Great discussions on this thread! We are reading them carefully to learn what we can do better.
Let me just comment on the overall impact of having such articles appear on Fortune.com and CNN.com:
The article is indeed the result of PR work done by MySQL AB, but the value of it will benefit the entire free software / open source community. We need to get many more business articles out there, so let's be happy about this one, and let's produce more of them!
Although this very article mentions MySQL only, please have a look at other articles where we at MySQL AB consistently mention the other open source databases. Here are two such articles on prominent business-focused sites (one of which, incidentally, is powered by MySQL):
Our ambition is not to be a threat to bigwigs per se, but to make superior database software available AND affordable to all. With your help we can do it.
We are very glad it is over now. Thanks to all of you (and there were many of you) who supported us through this process. You are doing a great job defending free software and open source principles.
Let me offer my view on the Bloomberg article. It is a huge success for the whole open source community that MySQL gets written about in a publication which is for non-techies only. It is an indication that open source development is not in vain - that open source is becoming a viable alternative even in the most conservative IT shops.
So in stead of arguing for and against this or that open source database, let's work together to become even stronger in the business world!
A key reason for MySQL's huge installed base is that Monty and David - the founders - focused on speed, reliability, and ease of management. That's why Bloomberg is writing about MySQL. And that is also the way to find paying customers who make it possible to hire more programmers and further develop the product.
I am sorry if this sounds like marketing speech. We at MySQL AB are working our butts off to conquer the business world. Now as we are doing so, it will benefit all open source databases. Will you help us?
We have said earlier that we welcomed the opensourcing of Gemini when it finally happened. But NuSphere still denies having violated the GPL in the first place, which, if left at that, may set a damaging precedent and is a potential threat to ANYONE developing GPL'd software. I believe it is in everyone's interest that the GPL is a defendable licensing model.
And, for those who may not know, we at MySQL AB have made numerous attempts to settle the case out of court.
We fully believe in open source and in business built on it (ENTIRELY open source). So far it has worked outnicely.
Our model differs from the one of Great Bridge. We maintain control of the database kernel so that we can sell commercial licences to those numerous companies who need a non-GPL licence. We also have a strong and widely known trademark. MySQL AB offers support done by the core developers. This allows us to offer a total product and service package that is in line with the open source / free software thinking and also makes sound business sense.
In the GPL violation that MySQL AB has sued NuSphere for, the Gemini software component was statically linked to the GPL'd MySQL server.
Some more info: the MySQL DBMS can make use of a number of so called table handlers that go between the server and the storage system (which usually, but not always, is a disk). A vast majority of all MySQL installations run on the MyISAM table handler that MySQL AB has developed. Gemini is also a table handler, and it can be used in conjunction with or as a replacement for MyISAM. In addition to Gemini (which was developed by Progress / NuSphere) there are other third-party table handlers: Berkeley DB from Sleepycat Inc. and InnoDB from Innobase Oy. Each table handler has its pros and cons, and it depends on the application which one(s) you want to use. Overall, the existence of multiple table handlers for MySQL extends the range of applications for which MySQL can be successfully used. In a web application, MyISAM gives you excellent performance. In a traditional client/server multi-user environment, one of the third-party table handlers mentioned above may be most useful. A table handler for MySQL cannot be used as such with any other DBMS.
MySQL AB is not breaking the GPL and will never do so. We offer our interpretation of the GPL, which is always based on the one found on http://www.gnu.org . It is always up to the user or customer to decide whether he/she wants to use MySQL under GPL or under a commercial licence.
We might be both blind and stupid, but the GPL violation is quite clear.
Only after we sued NuSphere for GPL violation did they post the source for Gemini on a website. Please also note that the GPL licence requires you to ACCOMPANY the software with the source code or a written offer to supply the source code. To date NuSphere has not to our knowledge even admitted the GPL violation.
We have submitted a counterclaim of some 35 pages with detailed information on the violations we claim NuSphere has done. This claim is a public document and anybody can go to the courthouse to study it.
NuSphere has never had the right to distribute MySQL under a proprietary license, and hence nobody is saying that NuSphere has breached it.
We did offer them the possibility to sell commercial versions of the MySQL server as a new way for them to do business, but in stead they sued us.
Around the same times we realised that they were breaching the GPL licence by shipping NuSphere MySQL Advantage without the source code for Gemini, the software component that integrates with MySQL.
Under the interim agreement, NuSphere had the right to fair use of the MySQL trademark and the right to use and register "NuSphere MySQL", "Rocket MySQL" and "Enhanced MySQL". "Fair use" is defined in the legislation and has a very limited meaning.
NuSphere never bought the rights to the trademark, and never had the right to set up a site called mysql.org.
The $300k consisted of three monthly payments for June, July and August 2000 and nothing more. The payment was for being part of the GPL announcement of MySQL AB and for beginning to ship a product that had the word "MySQL" in its name.
As the interim agreement wasn't followed by a final agreement, it terminated. MySQL AB continued to work in good faith with NuSphere in anticipation of reaching a final agreement. When MySQL AB learned that NuSphere violated the terms of the interim agreement despite numerous contacts and notices, MySQL AB formally informed NuSphere that the interim agreement was terminated. And even then, we at MySQL AB tried to reach a solution by flying from Scandinavia to Bedford, MA to meet with NuSphere and sort out the situation. After three days of meetings, NuSphere surprised us by serving a lawsuit. That is how this whole thing started.
MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL licence is based on the interpretation of the Free Software Foundation. See
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
MySQL AB -has- trademarked the "MySQL" name. The trademark is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries, and applications have been filed in other countries, including the US.
We have not said the GPL violation is related to the trademark violation. We have observed and reported to NuSphere a number of violations, including:
* breach of the interim agreement we had
* trademark infringement
* breach of the GPL licence
And to enforce our rights we have filed a counterclaim.
We have no termination tactics. On the contrary, we have made every effort to reach a final agreement with NuSphere. We offered them new revenue streams and "most favoured nation" terms, but they reacted by suing us.
Slashdot Mirror
Slashdotters, this is a very important discussion (the one on software patents), but let's start with accurate facts.
The 283 thing is old news and was just repeated by Mr Florian Müller (who is NOT a MySQL developer). See here:
http://news.com.com/Group:+Linux+potentially+infr
I quote from that article:
- - -
Linux potentially infringes 283 patents, including 27 held by Microsoft but none that have been validated by court judgments, according to a group that sells insurance to protect those using or selling Linux against intellectual-property litigation.
Dan Ravicher, founder and executive director of the Public Patent Foundation, conducted the analysis for Open Source Risk Management. OSRM is like an insurance company, selling legal protection against Linux copyright-infringement claims. It plans to expand the program to patent protections.
- - -
So it seems that an important discussion has got onto the wrong track due to incorrect input information.
But let us discuss software patents! MySQL's official position can be found here:
http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/patents.html
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
John, this is a misquote from the start. MySQL has not claimed ANYTHING, nor has any MySQL developer. See my posting elsewhere under this topic.
A person who is only an advisor to MySQL has simply repeated something that someone else has previously said about Linux and patents.
I am sorry for the confusion, but we did not create it.
Marten Mickos, MySQL
Please read the source text carefully!
Florian Müller is NOT a MySQL developer. He is an independent software developer who ALSO is an advisor to MySQL.
And when Florian mentiones the patents, he is only quoting another source.
Florian Müller is engaged (successfully, I might add) in opposing the legalisation of software patents in EU. By doing this, he is doing all of us within the free software and open source world an enormous favour.
I am afraid that many of the postings on this topic are based on erroneous input data. Hope this helps to set things straight.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
This is an interesting question, with two interpretations:
1. A software vendor must NOT present its interpretation of the GPL, because that could be deemed by others as "misrepresentation" of the GPL.
2. A software vendor SHOULD indeed, as the owner of the source code, present its own interpretation of the GPL.
You seem to prefer alternative 2, but most participants in this debate on Slashdot seem to prefer alternative 1. We try to stick to 1 (and most times when we go into 2, someone reacts negatively).
Thx for the idea. One school would say we should do it because others are doing it on other operating systems. But another school would say that we should specifically NOT do it, because the beauty of our product is that it runs on any operating system and can be easily integrated with nearly anything.
Let me know your thoughts.
We nowadays work together with the vendors of commercial applications to enable their apps to work with MySQL and to promote their apps in the MySQL ecosystem. The policy has not changed, but the fact that the client libraries are under GPL (and not LGPL from which we changed 2 years ago when we launched version 4) gives a more clearcut situation. You are free to embed the GPL libraries in open source applications and you are welcome to embed the commercially licensed libraries under commercial terms.
As for your GPL question, here is a brief answer. I am not a lawyer and MySQL AB is not authorised to advice anyone in legal matters, but practically this is what you need to know about the GPL: The reciprocity requirement (i.e. the requirement to make your own software available under GPL also) kicks in when you distribute derivative works. The keywords both start with a d - distribution and derivative works. If both are in force, then the reciprocity requirement kicks in. Otherwise not. Then there are debates about the exact legal interpretation of those words, but I'll leave that to experts. Hope this helps.
Marten
Don't care what anyone says, you guys are a mainstay for web developers everywhere! MySQL is practically everyones first database. I love you guys... and not just in the platonic sense either!
Thank you! We hope we can continue to be useful to our millions of users.
Marten
MySQL AB has never threatened to sue another company, except in the one case some years ago when WE got sued for no apparent reason.
To your question: We have nothing against companies who want to redistribute our GPL-licensed code without paying a licence fee. On the contrary, we encourage it. The requirement we have, and which we think is nothing but fair, is that such a company must adhere to the GPL licence.
Marten
Working on it!
Marten
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
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#MereAggr
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
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
That's an interesting discussion that would warrant more than a Slashdot posting.
Briefly:
* we have had tremendous benefit in the enterprise market of just having the money (not using it)
* we have got great value out of our VCs (advice, introductions, etc.)
* any company will need cash reserves for unforeseen situations and for being able to act fast if an opportunity emerges
* as we continue to expand, we will be making investments out of the funding we received
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.
Great discussions on this thread! We are reading them carefully to learn what we can do better.
Let me just comment on the overall impact of having such articles appear on Fortune.com and CNN.com:
The article is indeed the result of PR work done by MySQL AB, but the value of it will benefit the entire free software / open source community. We need to get many more business articles out there, so let's be happy about this one, and let's produce more of them!
Although this very article mentions MySQL only, please have a look at other articles where we at MySQL AB consistently mention the other open source databases. Here are two such articles on prominent business-focused sites (one of which, incidentally, is powered by MySQL):
= A2 44_0_1_0_C
http://www.open-mag.com/01943583279.htm
http://www.alwayson-network.com/comments.php?id
Our ambition is not to be a threat to bigwigs per se, but to make superior database software available AND affordable to all. With your help we can do it.
Marten Mickos
CEO, MySQL AB
We are very glad it is over now. Thanks to all of you (and there were many of you) who supported us through this process. You are doing a great job defending free software and open source principles.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Guys,
Let me offer my view on the Bloomberg article. It is a huge success for the whole open source community that MySQL gets written about in a publication which is for non-techies only. It is an indication that open source development is not in vain - that open source is becoming a viable alternative even in the most conservative IT shops.
So in stead of arguing for and against this or that open source database, let's work together to become even stronger in the business world!
A key reason for MySQL's huge installed base is that Monty and David - the founders - focused on speed, reliability, and ease of management. That's why Bloomberg is writing about MySQL. And that is also the way to find paying customers who make it possible to hire more programmers and further develop the product.
I am sorry if this sounds like marketing speech. We at MySQL AB are working our butts off to conquer the business world. Now as we are doing so, it will benefit all open source databases. Will you help us?
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
We have said earlier that we welcomed the opensourcing of Gemini when it finally happened. But NuSphere still denies having violated the GPL in the first place, which, if left at that, may set a damaging precedent and is a potential threat to ANYONE developing GPL'd software. I believe it is in everyone's interest that the GPL is a defendable licensing model.
And, for those who may not know, we at MySQL AB have made numerous attempts to settle the case out of court.
Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We fully believe in open source and in business built on it (ENTIRELY open source). So far it has worked outnicely.
Our model differs from the one of Great Bridge. We maintain control of the database kernel so that we can sell commercial licences to those numerous companies who need a non-GPL licence. We also have a strong and widely known trademark. MySQL AB offers support done by the core developers. This allows us to offer a total product and service package that is in line with the open source / free software thinking and also makes sound business sense.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
In the GPL violation that MySQL AB has sued NuSphere for, the Gemini software component was statically linked to the GPL'd MySQL server.
Some more info: the MySQL DBMS can make use of a number of so called table handlers that go between the server and the storage system (which usually, but not always, is a disk). A vast majority of all MySQL installations run on the MyISAM table handler that MySQL AB has developed. Gemini is also a table handler, and it can be used in conjunction with or as a replacement for MyISAM. In addition to Gemini (which was developed by Progress / NuSphere) there are other third-party table handlers: Berkeley DB from Sleepycat Inc. and InnoDB from Innobase Oy. Each table handler has its pros and cons, and it depends on the application which one(s) you want to use. Overall, the existence of multiple table handlers for MySQL extends the range of applications for which MySQL can be successfully used. In a web application, MyISAM gives you excellent performance. In a traditional client/server multi-user environment, one of the third-party table handlers mentioned above may be most useful. A table handler for MySQL cannot be used as such with any other DBMS.
I hope this information is useful!
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
MySQL AB is not breaking the GPL and will never do so. We offer our interpretation of the GPL, which is always based on the one found on http://www.gnu.org . It is always up to the user or customer to decide whether he/she wants to use MySQL under GPL or under a commercial licence.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We might be both blind and stupid, but the GPL violation is quite clear.
Only after we sued NuSphere for GPL violation did they post the source for Gemini on a website. Please also note that the GPL licence requires you to ACCOMPANY the software with the source code or a written offer to supply the source code. To date NuSphere has not to our knowledge even admitted the GPL violation.
We have submitted a counterclaim of some 35 pages with detailed information on the violations we claim NuSphere has done. This claim is a public document and anybody can go to the courthouse to study it.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
NuSphere has never had the right to distribute MySQL under a proprietary license, and hence nobody is saying that NuSphere has breached it.
We did offer them the possibility to sell commercial versions of the MySQL server as a new way for them to do business, but in stead they sued us.
Around the same times we realised that they were breaching the GPL licence by shipping NuSphere MySQL Advantage without the source code for Gemini, the software component that integrates with MySQL.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Under the interim agreement, NuSphere had the right to fair use of the MySQL trademark and the right to use and register "NuSphere MySQL", "Rocket MySQL" and "Enhanced MySQL". "Fair use" is defined in the legislation and has a very limited meaning.
NuSphere never bought the rights to the trademark, and never had the right to set up a site called mysql.org.
The $300k consisted of three monthly payments for June, July and August 2000 and nothing more. The payment was for being part of the GPL announcement of MySQL AB and for beginning to ship a product that had the word "MySQL" in its name.
As the interim agreement wasn't followed by a final agreement, it terminated. MySQL AB continued to work in good faith with NuSphere in anticipation of reaching a final agreement. When MySQL AB learned that NuSphere violated the terms of the interim agreement despite numerous contacts and notices, MySQL AB formally informed NuSphere that the interim agreement was terminated. And even then, we at MySQL AB tried to reach a solution by flying from Scandinavia to Bedford, MA to meet with NuSphere and sort out the situation. After three days of meetings, NuSphere surprised us by serving a lawsuit. That is how this whole thing started.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
MySQL AB's interpretation of the GPL licence is based on the interpretation of the Free Software Foundation. See http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-faq.html#MereAggre gation
MySQL AB -has- trademarked the "MySQL" name. The trademark is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries, and applications have been filed in other countries, including the US.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We have not said the GPL violation is related to the trademark violation. We have observed and reported to NuSphere a number of violations, including:
* breach of the interim agreement we had
* trademark infringement
* breach of the GPL licence
And to enforce our rights we have filed a counterclaim.
We have no termination tactics. On the contrary, we have made every effort to reach a final agreement with NuSphere. We offered them new revenue streams and "most favoured nation" terms, but they reacted by suing us.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB