Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm
Precedence: bulk
Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: local policy)
In-Reply-To: <20070807210945.2cbd4f83@grimnir>
References: <1185825151.4542.1.camel@test.asus>
 <20070807210945.2cbd4f83@grimnir>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
Message-Id: <60AD9BA9-A062-4383-9F9E-16A8053D9E93@gbiv.com>
Cc: dev@apr.apache.org, jzobel@heute-morgen.de
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Roy T. Fielding" <fielding@gbiv.com>
Subject: Re: Will apr_dbd_mysql be distributed with apr?
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 14:04:46 -0700
To: Nick Kew <nick@webthing.com>

On Aug 7, 2007, at 1:09 PM, Nick Kew wrote:

> On Mon, 30 Jul 2007 21:52:30 +0200
> Joachim Zobel <jzobel@heute-morgen.de> wrote:
>
>> Hi.
>>
>> Since niq has dual licensed it, with one license being Apache 2, this
>> should be possible.
>>
>> If this is not yet planned it should be considered, since the fact
>> that it is missing has caused problems for lots of people.
>
> Sorry, should've followed up to this straight away.
>
> I relicensed the apr_dbd_mysql driver six months ago.  Basically
>   (1) MySQL have explicitly excepted it from the GPL requirement.
>   (2) Debian had raised it as an issue, so I resolved it with them.
> See http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2007/01/09/re-licensing- 
> apr_dbd_mysql/
>
> I recollect the ASF in the past being unable to include it due
> to the GPL. But Joachim pinged me before posting, and suggested that
> the problem should no longer apply after the license update.
> And I couldn't fault his argument: it's no longer clear to me that
> there's any problem with including it.

According to

    http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/foss-exception.html

    1. You obey the GPL in all respects for the Program and the
    Derivative Work, except for identifiable sections of the
    Derivative Work which are not derived from the Program, and
    which can reasonably be considered independent and separate
    works in themselves,

Is apr_dbd_mysql an independent work or a Derived Work in relation
to mysql?  I am pretty certain RMS would say it is a Derived Work.
I don't know what MySQL thinks, but their copyright may not apply
if all you are doing is using the published client API.

In other words, if it is an independent work (in the eyes of MySQL)
then we can distribute it under the Apache License and, assuming
we don't link in MySQL by default for binaries, there is no viral
effect.  However, if it is considered to be a Derived Work, then the
MySQL exception is only saying that we can distribute both of them
together if and only if the GPL is applied to apr_dbd_mysql
(regardless of your decision as copyright owner).  The exception
therefore only protects the rest of APR from the viral clause,
and we still can't redistribute it in our package

My opinion is that apr_dbd_mysql is an independent work that merely
uses the published MySQL interfaces, and therefore okay for us to
include in the distribution.  That would be confirmed if MySQL said
it was okay to license apr_dbd_mysql as under AL2.  If all they said
was that APR could include apr_dbd_mysql under the exception, then
that doesn't say much of anything.

....Roy