Hello,

why are you imposing the use of a commercial MySQL provider (the one from CoreLab) when there is a free one available directly from MySQL's producer???

S.

well, because that one from MySql is GPL-ed? because a license for the one from mysql costs 289 euro per developer ? so if we go for the 'free' one, you either have to GPL your stuff, OR have to pay 289 per developer?

And make no mistake, if we went for the GPL-ed one, and you want to distribute the generated code, by definition of 'linking makes the linking app a derivative work of the linked gpl-ed code' clause in the GPL, your work would become GPL-ed as well and therefore you always would have to buy a license from Mysql, because IF you would use the gpl-ed version internally, you aren't allowed to distribute the code unless you would open up the code to the GPL.

AND, because our code isn't GPL-ed though it links to the mysql provider, it then would not be allowed to you to distribute the runtime libs with the generated code to your customer.

So, BECAUSE of that, we didn't go for the official provider from MySql.

In general I really don't understand why MySql licenses its provider under the GPL, apparently they don't want people to connect to their DB without either obeying the GPL or buying a license for a provider. So the corelab one was the 'best' alternative. And don't think I really like the situation, in fact we've been to the point where we would simply drop MySql because of all the CRAP (licensing, commercial providers which suck etc.) involved in MySql support.

Still convinced the GPL-ed version from MySql is a better solution? I doubt it.

Well, the fact that using a GPLed library could lead (this is really not clear ... MySQL says so but it still has to be confirmed) you to have your own software GPLed was known to me .... but, come on, the .NET Framework gives you ways around statically linking against a certain library. This would allow to use the free provider instead of having to buy a commercial one.

S.

shade wrote:

Well, come on, there are ways around having to link against a given DLL. This would allow to use the free provider instead of having to buy a commercial one. S.

There are ways around having to link against a given DLL? No there aren't (yeah, I know, com object links dll, blabla, that's cheating, and no-one knows if it's legal) There's no jurisprudence available which proves you can legally do that. And sorry, but we won't take that risk. We asked MySql clearly what was the situation and they simply told us that the best solution was to become a MySql VAR to sell licenses for their provider.

If you want to take the risk of a lawsuit over a GPL infrigment, that's your choice, but we stay away from that as far as possible. That has the consequence that we can't use the free MySql provider from MySql, so be it. Trust me, MySql's legal team aren't a bunch of sillies, they're on top of these kind of things.

Besides that, we don't WANT TO violate the GPL with a cheap dirty trick. MySql decided they want to release their code under the GPL. That's their choice, it has consequences but it's their choice. We want to respect that, even though we would have done it differently (LGPL for example).

I also know that some of the competition uses the GPL-ed version of their provider to build their code. That's their choice, though I'm not willing to take the chance of ending up in court and on the FP of /. as a GPL violator.

Again, IF there weren't any complications, we would have picked the free provider, no problem. Sadly there were complications, so we had to make a decision. Nevertheless, if we would have picked the GPL-ed version, would you have taken the risk of distributing YOUR code without a legal license from MySql? (Which is much more expensive than the core lab one?).