db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Daniel John Debrunner <...@debrunners.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Date Thu, 27 Oct 2005 19:29:10 GMT
Michael J. Segel wrote:
> On Thursday 27 October 2005 12:22, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
>>Michael J. Segel wrote:
>>>I guess you could say that this is a good thing if you're looking at
>>>using Derby vs MySQL.   Which is why MySQL can be released under multiple
>>>licensing types. GPL affords certain protections to the author, or rather
>>>to the author's intentions.
>>GPL has absolutly nothing to do with why MySQL can be released under
>>multiple licenses.
>>MySQL AB can release MySQL under multiple licenses because they are the
>>sole owner of the copyright on the code and for Innodb (at least) they
>>have licenced that code from the copyright holder. Of course now the
>>copyright holder for the Innodb code is Oracle, which raises all sorts
>>of interesting possibilities.
> Sigh.
> Gee as the owner of the IP I would hope that MySQL could license their code as 
> they saw fit. ;-)
> Did you actually read the GPL?

I guess I'm confused as to what you are talking about any more.

I thought you were talking about MySQL AB's practice of shipping MySQL
under a GPL licence or a commercial one. The commerical one is because
MySQL AB owns the copyright or has licenced it from the copyright holder.

Obviously you are talking about something else, but I'm not sure what.
The ASL v2 allows distribution under a different licence, I thought the
GPL did not (clause 2b).


View raw message