Debian Bug report logs - #188723
license changes / GPL vs. LGPL / GPL vs. OpenSSL

Toggle useless messages

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Jordi Mallach <jordi@debian.org>

To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>

Subject: libmysqlclient12 is linked against OpenSSL, causing bad licensing problems with GPL software

Date: Sat, 12 Apr 2003 18:07:44 +0200

Package: libmysqlclient-dev
Version: 4.0.12-3
Severity: grave
Tags: sid

Hi Christian,

My mailutils builds have started failing because I'm not build-depending
on libssl-dev. This is due to libmysqlclient12-dev trying to link -ssl,
which didn't happen with 3.x. This is quite problematic:

- libmysqlclient is a GPL library linked against a non-GPL compatible
  license (I don't know if MySQL has an exception clause for this, I
  haven't found it in /u/s/d/libmysqlclient12/copyright)
- this makes GPL software not able to be linked against
  libmysqlclient12, making the GPL licensing of libmysqlclient12 quite
  futile, as it is now quite useless.

I hope you can provide some solution to this.

Jordi

-- System Information:
Debian Release: testing/unstable
Architecture: i386
Kernel: Linux nubol 2.4.20 #2 Mon Feb 10 13:04:41 CET 2003 i686
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US

Versions of packages libmysqlclient-dev depends on:
ii  libmysqlclient12              4.0.12-3   mysql database client library
ii  zlib1g-dev                    1:1.1.4-11 compression library - development

-- no debconf information

Message #10 received at 188723@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: 188723@bugs.debian.org

Cc: control@bugs.debian.org, 188723-submitter@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [ch@debian.org: Re: Licensing changes from 3.23 to 4.0]

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:23:07 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

tags 188723 + upstream
forwarded 188723 lenz@mysql.com
retitle 188723 license changes / GPL vs. LGPL / GPL vs. OpenSSL
thanks

Hello

I talked to the MySQL authors. Attached is my last mail to them, for your
interest, in which I tried to clarify the two different problems. 

bye,

-christian-

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: "Matt Fredrickson" <matthew@mysql.com>, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@mysql.com>, Zak Greant <zak@mysql.com>

Subject: Re: Licensing changes from 3.23 to 4.0

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:11:25 +0200 (CEST)

Hello

[problem #1: GPL vs. OpenSSL in mysql itself]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Matt Fredrickson wrote:
>> OpenSSL is considered not to be GPL compatible without a 
>> formal notice of the GPL software's author (you) that linking 
>> against this specific non-GPL piece of software is permitted. 
>> Is then linking against the current MySQL version legal? 
>> Or do you believe that OpenSSL is GPL compatible?
>
> Please tell me more about what you are trying to accomplish, I don't
> quite understand what you are asking.  Feel free to call me at

MySQL has put the whole database under the GPL. The GPL prohobits linking 
code against code that is not GPL compatible. OpenSSL is not GPL compatible
as it has the famous advertising clause. So you as authors have to explicitly
say: The software is under GPL but with the exception that linking to OpenSSL
is permitted. Else you violate your own license! :-)
(that is the interpretation of the debian-legal mailing list license gurus
as far as I understand it, you may correct me)


[problem #2: GPL vs LGPL in mysql]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 01:55:59PM -0600, Zak Greant wrote:
> > a) libmysqlclient12 is GPL whereas 10 was LGPL. That means that as
> >    people told me, e.g. PHP and other non GPL but free projects have
> >    some trouble. Will the lib stay GPL or are people considering
> >    changing that back to the more flexible LGPL?
> 
>   As far as I know, the library will stay GPL.  However, we do allow linking
>   with 

Where in the docs is this said? I just found section 
  http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Using_the_MySQL_software_for_free_under_GPL.html
  "You can use the MySQL software for free under the GPL if you adhere to 
   the conditions of the GPL"
  ...
  "When you are not distributing any part of the MySQL system, you can use 
   it for free."
and then
  http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Using_the_MySQL_software_under_a_commercial_license.html
  "When you link a program with any GPL code from the MySQL software and 
   don't want the resulting product to be licensed under GPL"
This is contradictious. If the second one seems to allow dynamical linking
as then no part of MySQL is *distributed*.

PHP and Perl modules like DBI e.g. are not GPL. Should they buy a mysql
license?

People already started to fork and repackage the old libmysqlclient10 which 
was LGPL and other authors asked me if the should wait of link against that
new package, too....


bye,

-christian-

Message #24 received at 188723@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: 188723@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [ch@debian.org: Re: Licensing changes from 3.23 to 4.0]

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:23:50 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Hope to hear from them, soon. 

bye,

-christian-

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: licensing@mysql.com, lizenzierung@mysql.de

Cc: Lenz Grimmer <lenz@mysql.com>

Subject: [ch@debian.org: Re: Licensing changes from 3.23 to 4.0]

Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 10:22:07 +0200

[Message part 3 (text/plain, inline)]

Hello

I did not receive any answer yet but would really like to get response
from you.

bye,

-christian-

[Message part 4 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: "Matt Fredrickson" <matthew@mysql.com>, Lenz Grimmer <lenz@mysql.com>, Zak Greant <zak@mysql.com>

Subject: Re: Licensing changes from 3.23 to 4.0

Date: Sun, 20 Apr 2003 17:11:25 +0200 (CEST)

Hello

[problem #1: GPL vs. OpenSSL in mysql itself]

On Thu, Apr 17, 2003 at 04:54:06PM -0700, Matt Fredrickson wrote:
>> OpenSSL is considered not to be GPL compatible without a 
>> formal notice of the GPL software's author (you) that linking 
>> against this specific non-GPL piece of software is permitted. 
>> Is then linking against the current MySQL version legal? 
>> Or do you believe that OpenSSL is GPL compatible?
>
> Please tell me more about what you are trying to accomplish, I don't
> quite understand what you are asking.  Feel free to call me at

MySQL has put the whole database under the GPL. The GPL prohobits linking 
code against code that is not GPL compatible. OpenSSL is not GPL compatible
as it has the famous advertising clause. So you as authors have to explicitly
say: The software is under GPL but with the exception that linking to OpenSSL
is permitted. Else you violate your own license! :-)
(that is the interpretation of the debian-legal mailing list license gurus
as far as I understand it, you may correct me)


[problem #2: GPL vs LGPL in mysql]

On Tue, Apr 15, 2003 at 01:55:59PM -0600, Zak Greant wrote:
> > a) libmysqlclient12 is GPL whereas 10 was LGPL. That means that as
> >    people told me, e.g. PHP and other non GPL but free projects have
> >    some trouble. Will the lib stay GPL or are people considering
> >    changing that back to the more flexible LGPL?
> 
>   As far as I know, the library will stay GPL.  However, we do allow linking
>   with 

Where in the docs is this said? I just found section 
  http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Using_the_MySQL_software_for_free_under_GPL.html
  "You can use the MySQL software for free under the GPL if you adhere to 
   the conditions of the GPL"
  ...
  "When you are not distributing any part of the MySQL system, you can use 
   it for free."
and then
  http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Using_the_MySQL_software_under_a_commercial_license.html
  "When you link a program with any GPL code from the MySQL software and 
   don't want the resulting product to be licensed under GPL"
This is contradictious. If the second one seems to allow dynamical linking
as then no part of MySQL is *distributed*.

PHP and Perl modules like DBI e.g. are not GPL. Should they buy a mysql
license?

People already started to fork and repackage the old libmysqlclient10 which 
was LGPL and other authors asked me if the should wait of link against that
new package, too....


bye,

-christian-

Message #31 received at 188723-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: 188723-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: bugs is closed

Date: Sat, 3 May 2003 14:49:03 +0200

Included in the last upload was an extended copyright notice that fixes
this bug as far as mysql itself is concerned.

bye,

-christian-

Message #50 received at 188723@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: 188723@bugs.debian.org

Subject: [zak@mysql.com: libmysqlclient and OpenSSL linking and licensing issues]

Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2003 10:58:15 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

Latest news... I forwarded this to debian-legal, too.

tschüß,

-christian-

[Message part 2 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Zak Greant <zak@mysql.com>

To: ch@debian.org

Cc: David Axmark <david@mysql.com>

Subject: libmysqlclient and OpenSSL linking and licensing issues

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 17:42:42 -0600

Dear Christian,

Sorry for the long delay on this matter!

Here is our initial plan to fix the problems that been created by the 
change in licensing.

We are considering offering a blanket exception that will allow MySQL to 
be used in combined works where the combined work is licensed under one 
or more OSI approved licenses.

This will allow most (if not all) free and open source software projects 
to continue to  use MySQL as they always have and will ensure that 
combined works created using GPL-licensed MySQL must still release 
their source and allow others to copy, modify and distribute it.

Additionally, it helps ensure that closed source applications that 
require MySQL software must use the commercial MySQL license if the 
combined work is to be distributed.

Of course, we would like feedback from the community on this issue, 
rather than making an arbitrary change and encountering more problems. 
:)

So, will this change meet the needs of the Debian community?

Can you see problems with this approach?


Cheers!
--zak

[Message part 3 (message/rfc822, inline)]

From: Zak Greant <zak@mysql.com>

To: ch@debian.org

Cc: David Axmark <david@mysql.com>

Subject: libmysqlclient and OpenSSL linking and licensing issues

Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 18:54:49 -0600

Dear Christian,

Of course, a few minutes after I sent my last message, I forgot to 
mention that we would have a specific exception for OpenSSL.

Bleh. I hate licensing issues. :)

--zak

Message #55 received at 168554-done@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox, reply):

From: Christian Hammers <ch@debian.org>

To: 168554-done@bugs.debian.org, 188723-done@bugs.debian.org

Subject: Bugs fixed.

Date: Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:25:04 +0200

[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]

The licence issues have all been cleared now.

bye,

-christian-

[Message part 2 (application/pgp-signature, inline)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.