Sun mentioned that they don’t have any problem with IBM’s BSD license on DB2 as it allows them to distribute DB2 under the GPL license (and not vice-versa), not because DB2 was proprietary.

The two applications (the mySQL and the engine) are ok, as they are both open-source and GPLed (actually, doing it without installation is putting it on the OK zone anyway) the problem is with the binary: If it’s sold separately, and installed separately, then it’s most likely ok. As long as it’s not distributed together as one application and contains all the copyright notices, I think that it isn’t in violation of the GPL.

You should also differentiate between BSD and GPL.

Now the question is whether anyone is distributing an installer that automates this process after the purchase of ScaleDB, which might incur liability on him (but not you).

You download MySQL code, it has a storage engine interface. Then you download an open source interface that enables MySQL to leverage the services provided by ScaleDB and other storage engines. You compile these together.

ScaleDB is a separate application (sold in binary form) that is accessed by the now compiled MySQL application using dynamic linking. We consider ScaleDB to be like a database storage service called by MySQL, much like a file system or network file system.

There is a precedent whereby MySQL acepted the BSD license for such a connector provided by IBM that leverages the services of IBM’s DB2. See details and MySQL counsel’s approval here: http://bugs.mysql.com/bug.php?id=44172

Based upon the facts that:
1. MySQL and ScaleDB are compiled seperately;
2. They utilize dynamic linking a la an operating system call;
3. The connector code is open sourced;
4. MySQL leverages these services independently, meaning it can also leverage other storage engines using this same approach;
5. ScaleDB will provide similar services to other databases (possibly upon first customer ship);
6. There is a precedent of IBM doing this with DB2 (using a BSD-style license) and Sun legal blessing it.

We believe that it should be clear that they are two separate and independent applications. Thoughts?

I (personally) think that if it were a windows installer (or bash script) downloading the package as a “dependency” (same as a .deb package) and integrate them, this would be a problem. If we’re talking about two separate installers that are meant to install the software as a whole, I think that the aim is not mere aggregation, but a single distribution.

I’d highly recommend to avoid it, though I’m not 100% certain it is in violation of the GPL.

I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice, but it is not the unauthorized practice of law, either.

I wonder if it would make a difference if the install script were the primary installation mechanism or not — e.g. the DVD-ROM simply installed MariaDB by default, but there was a separate script (or screen) that allowed you to add in the closed-source ScaleDB.

As a second option, what if the DVD-ROM didn’t distribute the GPL software at all, but configured the Windows installer to download it automatically, with an explicit prompt (e.g. “Would you like to download and install MariaDB”) followed by a window where the user had to click “OK” to accept the GPL?. In that case, no GPL software touched the DVD-ROM, so in my non-legal opinion, it looks like the distributor is not bound by the GPL.

I’d say that if you want to combine the two, one installer is not the right option. You can either relicense the ScaleDB to comply with GPL or maybe consider providing it as a SaaS and charge for the use (which is allowed by GPL).

[Decent Disclosure: I’m a copyright attorney and I represented the plaintiff in Jinchess v. IChessU, the first Israeli GPL enforcement suit, the case was quite similar, but there were some amendments in the original code, that made the distribution seem like one package (one windows installer, f.e)]

Paul: Thanks for the link. I don’t follow Michael’s blog, but I should, especially since we’re old war buddies from the early XML days, and Saxon actually started from SAX. It’s interesting that Michael, coming from the supplier side, also sees the cracks in the GPL dual-licensing model. Perhaps the whole thing rests on a GPL FUD campaign that could collapse out from under the dual-licensers at any time.

Another consideration is that the language of the GPL was intended to prevent people from distributing a GPL application that required a closed-source library to run, since that would just be a Trojan horse for vendor lock-in. An optional closed-source plugin is different: it might add extra functionality, but you can easily use the FOSS application without it. Of course, I’m sure that Richard Stallman would love to block that, too!

http://saxonica.blogharbor.com/blog/_archives/2009/6/7/4213973.html

Fortunately I’m not in a position where I need to worry about the GPL right now, but I’ll be interested to see whether some kind of consensus arises out of these musings.

I too believe that what the user does with two separate pieces of code is their own business under GPL2. I believe that GPL3 goes a bit further, but MySQL is under GPL2. So I believe that the two can work together without an OEM license. However, your idea of a script to combine the two gets a bit more gray. Compare this to the litigation against Napster, versus VCRs. The VCR enabled copying copyrighted materials, but was OK because it had other legitimate purposes (same with photocopy machines). Napster, since it had very little practical usage for anything other than distributing copyrighted music (which is illegal) was sued to death. So can you hand a user a script for combining GPL and non-GPL, whose sole purpose is to circumvent GPL? I’m not sure, no good case law on that one that I’m aware of, but I would avoid it. I believe that there are layers here. If you use dynamic linking versus static linking, that creates a degree of separation. If the storage engine supports other databases, that provides more separation regarding the two acting as a single product. There are things like this that help to create legal separation. Our understanding is that it IS doable.