Re: license question with non-GPL library

[Alexander Terekhov]

Merijn de Weerd wrote:
> 
> On 2006-08-16, Alexander Terekhov <terekhov@web.de> 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 
Merijn.

http://www.gnu.org/press/mysql-affidavit.html

"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?

regards,
alexander.

P.S. http://pacer.mad.uscourts.gov/dc/opinions/saris/pdf/progress%20software.pdf

-----
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.