[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: license question with non-GPL library

From: Alexander Terekhov
Subject: Re: license question with non-GPL library
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 2006 18:01:06 +0200

Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <> wrote:
> > Man oh man, you're really krank. It doesn't matter how you label computer
> > program works ("application" vs "library" is utterly irrelevant) which work
> > together in combination. In MySQL v. Progress, the Gemini (transactional
> > storage engine) was a "library" (used by MySQL and statically linked to the
> > MySQL code), not "application".
> Go read my other post. This question has *NOTHING* to do with
> whether a derivative work has been created.

Apart from Judge Saris, drop an email to The GPL Enforcer Moglen, stupid 

"The GPL uses copyright doctrine to achieve the result of the principle 
that we should all ``share and share alike.'' Thus anyone who combines 
GPL-licensed software with other program code must release the combined 
work under GPL, and must provide the source code for the entire 
derivative work."

Got it now, idiot?



With respect to the General Public License (“GPL”), MySQL has not 
demonstrated a substantial likelihood of success on the merits or 
irreparable harm. Affidavits submitted by the parties’ experts raise 
a factual dispute concerning whether the Gemini program is a 
derivative or an independent and separate work under GPL ¶ 2.

So MySQL lost and didn't get an injunction.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]