Subject: Re: Effect of the MySQL FLOSS License Exception?
From: Rick Moen <rick@linuxmafia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2004 13:53:46 -0700

Quoting Zak Greant (zak@mysql.com):

> This is close to correct. The FLOSS licensing for the MySQL clients was 
> the LGPL, while the server was GPL'd. Both were available under 
> proprietary terms as well.

I should have remembered that, and plead fatigue.

> Good point. I think that everyone agrees that a license cannot force a 
> change the licensing terms of a different work.

One of my points (in the thread that followed) is that some of the
rampant confusion on that point owes to misleading language in GPLv2
itself.  

> Accurately enough stated. We are willing to share with FLOSS 
> applications, but we still want a revenue stream via non-FLOSS 
> applications. Our licensing is not perfect for this, but it is a work 
> in progress that is good enough and is being incrementally refined.

I'd say it's an example of the copyright holder skillfully adjusting
licensing to meet his particular needs.  Thanks for the note.

-- 
Cheers,                       Ah, September, when the sysadmins turn colors
Rick Moen                     and fall off the trees....
rick@linuxmafia.com                                     -- Dave Van Domelen
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3