Mysql on commercial website - GPL applies?

Kadongy

Am I right in thinking you can use MySQL on a commerical website under the GPL? It's only if you want to distribute it as part of software that you pay?

Am I also right in thinking there would be a substantial performance gain over MSSQL 2008 express?

croo

It goes without saying that you should never rely on anonymous legal advice on any forum!

After saying that .... Yeah, you are mostly correct.
With GPL 2.0 you are never required to "pay", the only requirement is that if you distribute software based on GPL you are required to provide the source code to accompany the software.

While most software is still GPL 2.0, there are a number of variants of GPL now - one of the differences with the newer variants is what is considered distribution and some variants like aGPL consider distribution via the web distribution!

But last time I checked mySQL was GPL 2.0

No idea re the performance gain but mysql was always impressive in read-only mode. Of course bad database design can make any db look bad!

Kadongy

The area of SaaS seemed a bit grey, but my understanding is that if your software connects to the database sw, that is a different kettle of fish to having the db embedded or modified in you application - so the GPL covers that anyway.

There doesn't seem to be a clear consensus on performance difference between SQL Server Express and MySQL - it seems dependant on specific tasks which is faster.

For my personal purposes I think I'll use Express when it comes to it, as the database is currently in SQL Server Standard, and my own experience is much greater with MSSQL - "if it aint broke dont fix"

croo

Kadongy wrote: »

my understanding is that if your software connects to the database sw, that is a different kettle of fish to having the db embedded or modified in you application - so the GPL covers that anyway

There is nothing anti-commercial about GPL - you can use it in a commercial organization, sell it, give it away for free.. it doesn't really matter. The only thing unique is, if you "distribute" GPL based software you must provide the source code (and at the cost of distribution of the source code if you do wish to charge for it). Providing access via the web to an application is not normally considered distribution so you can use whatever GPL software you wish and you are not required to pay or provide code - because you are not distributing and that is the key.

Kadongy

Thanks for confirming that. That's how I understood it, but I wanted confirmation.

Bit off topic, but this is the licence I have for SQL Server 2008 Enterprise. MS had almost everything except Office available for free on this licence to student members of IEEE computer society - they still do have plenty of things:

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/academic/bb250622

croo

But you cannot use that for a "commercial site" as per your original post?

The purpose of the academic deals is to tie you to MS so when you need to create commercial solutions they are the first tools you think of and then you & your clients pay.

But you know open source is not just about paying or not paying ... it's about having the freedom of choice. FOSS keeps the bigger mainstream players reasonable but you do not have to look far back in history to see that prior to FOSS only large organizations could afford huge costs for the development tools we take for granted today - webservers, database servers and everything in between are available to small developers and perhaps most importantly there is a choice. Don't like MySQL there is Postgresql or Derby or MS Server if that is what you prefer. While proprietary solutions are always angling for ways to tie their customers in .. FOSS is about creating open standards and providing options.

Kadongy

Yes I've been using MSSQL Enterprise on that licence for a project. I'm commercialising it, so I want to switch.

There's a scheme where Microsoft make their products available to new companies for €100 p.a., which I'll apply for and think I would qualify for. But it still makes more sense to me to just use a free alternative for the database. SQL Server production licences are expensive enough.

You're right, of course, about the motivation for these offers. Cheap/free licences for students and new businesses means more MS developers and businesses using MS technologies. This strategy makes sense, and there is nothing to take issue with in it.

I dont know if it is true to say that Microsoft try to tie you in (these days anyway). My impression is that they do the exact opposite - probably in order to improve their image. For example they facilitate Mono, the project to port C# onto Linux

http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2009/07/microsoft-issues-patent-promise-dispels-mono-concerns.ars

They offer official support to Moonlight, which is a port of Silverlight to Linux by the same team. WCF services use open standards and protocols. This means Silverlight projects using web services use open standards where Flash web services use closed propriety ones.

In fact MS straight out recommended HTML 5 as a preferable solution for most contexts over Silverlight. That was retarded of them because people didn't think "wow they really are promoting freedom of choice", they thought "omfg they are dropping Silverlight! Abort all relevant projects!" ...but I really have digressed now
[They aren't dropping it].

croo

I think
1. your view is very niave. MS promote the likes of Mono to get people interested but I bet when you try to migrate your app from one to the other you find that the MS edition has those little extras that make the two not 100% compatible and then people decide, "I might as well ensure I get 100 compatibility and the only way to be sure is to use MS"
2. you could easily get a job with MS Marketing ... you've came asking about GPL and managed to drop a few MS marketing links as well as products and pricing into the discussion.

To me €100 a year for tools that could be available for zero does not look like much of a deal. Effectively they are saying.. pay me €100 per year and I will let you sell my products for me ... because when you try to commercialize your effort you cannot without someone paying the ferry man.

I have used MS products since the 1980s and that experience has left me without anything good to say about them. Everything they do has an angle that puts them first and the customers second.

Kadongy

I tried converting a couple of things to mono and got messages saying they contained elements that weren't supported alright.

I didn't have any agenda to market MS. I mentioned the licence thing because I looked it up to verify that it didn't cover commercial usage, and linked to that here because I thought it might be of interest to some people reading the thread. Anything I said on the matter beyond that was just in response to certain things you said that I disagreed with.

Incidentally, the licence is free forever for students - it doesn't expire - the limitation is non-commercial use. I think the business startup licence is €100 for everything for four years, though I could be wrong on that.

I dont think my view is naive. I countered your arguments and instead of leaving it or progressing your argument you just said my view was naive and that you'd been using MS products since 1980s so therefore you knew best. I've been using MS products since the 80's too though. They've improved a lot since then. I prefer them to open source equivalents but I dont present that preference as proof of any points I make.

Dunno why this thread has degenerated into MS Vs LAMP crap. The debate is annoying and pointless. It usually comes down to context which is better. When I started my project there was no open source technology available that would support what I was doing, and MS frameworks were clearly the best choice, including wrt use of open standards. MySQL was available for the db of course, but I had much more experience with MSSQL so again in that context it was the better choice.

So thanks for clarifying the stuff ragarding the GPL. I dont want to continue silly MS V LAMP debate stuff. MS offering cheap/free software is not them trying to pull a fast one - it is sensible strategy to promote uptake of their techs. MS supporting freedom of choice does not have a hidden agenda nor is it lip-service, it is an attempt to dispel silly anti-MS attitudes that are ingrained in a lot of people, which no longer have any relevance to anything.

croo

Kadongy wrote: »

I dont think my view is naive. I countered your arguments and instead of leaving it or progressing your argument you just said my view was naive and that you'd been using MS products since 1980s so therefore you knew best.

You are right, I am sorry... I had my tongue in cheek but I should have added some smilies perhaps.

Kadongy wrote: »

Dunno why this thread has degenerated into MS Vs LAMP crap. The debate is annoying and pointless.

I never mentioned LAMP, but again yes I agree, this is why I didn't offer any real arguments I am tired of the pointless discussion.

My problem is this is the open source forum, and we periodically get people who come here to post about non open source topics like MS products.

I am intrigued that MS does something that there is no open source equivalent for - the only thing I know they do best is being compatible with other MS tools.

Kadongy wrote: »

MS offering cheap/free software is not them trying to pull a fast one - it is sensible strategy to promote uptake of their techs. MS supporting freedom of choice does not have a hidden agenda nor is it lip-service, it is an attempt to dispel silly anti-MS attitudes that are ingrained in a lot of people, which no longer have any relevance to anything.

Well that too is just opinion. My experience has been that MS has been detrimental to open source and freedom of choice - they do offer another choice but that in itself is not freedom. From my perspective MS uses its $$$ muscle to the detriment of open source which it sees as a threat. We have evidence that includes a Doj judgment against them, Mozilla & SCO (which it funded to attack linux) to name just a few. I have no reason to believe anything has changed.

But as you say its a pointless argument. The bottom line is this is the open source forum, not the cheap software forum or even free software forum and the discussion is supposed to be about that topic not deals that MS provide. The price is not what defines open source!

PS. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html for what does define FOSS