www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.announce - MySQLD

reply Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
I have posted this version 0.00 module on my DCat web page -
http://www.britseyeview.com/dcat/ from where you can download it. 

The generated documentation is also there.

The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out there, where
does that leave the D version? At the moment I have retained the GPL header.

I'd welcome comments.

Steve
Jun 10 2009
next sibling parent "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
Unless you write your own everything, it should be GPL.  That said, 
MySQL has had a FLOSS/FOSS exception for quite some time - so if you use 
one of those licenses for linked software, it's fine also, according to 
their site.

Notably, some are writing their own drivers from scratch (e.g. PHP) to 
avoid this issue.

Of course, I am not a lawyer; please don't construe the above as legal 
advice.

-[Unknown]


Steve Teale wrote:

 I have posted this version 0.00 module on my DCat web page -
http://www.britseyeview.com/dcat/ from where you can download it. 
 
 The generated documentation is also there.
 
 The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out there, where
does that leave the D version? At the moment I have retained the GPL header.
 
 I'd welcome comments.
 
 Steve
Jun 10 2009
prev sibling next sibling parent Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:
Steve Teale Wrote:


 The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out there, where
does that leave the D version? At the moment I have retained the GPL header.
 


The client library is GPL and if you'll link to it, headers are not an issue.
Jun 10 2009
prev sibling parent reply Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Steve Teale wrote:

 I have posted this version 0.00 module on my DCat web page -
 http://www.britseyeview.com/dcat/ from where you can download it.
 
 The generated documentation is also there.
 
 The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out
 there, where does that leave the D version? At the moment I have
 retained the GPL header.
 
 I'd welcome comments.


If you're translating GPL code to D, the result is a derived work and 
therefore still GPL.

If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is 
copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.

I think Linus Torvalds got sued over having an errno.h that matched up 
with Unix's, same names, same values, and he prevailed.
Jun 12 2009
next sibling parent reply Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> writes:
Walter Bright wrote:

 
 If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is 
 copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.


I think it depends.  Here's a clause from the Boost license page:

"Does the copyright and license cover interfaces too? The conceptual 
interface to a library isn't covered. The particular representation 
expressed in the header is covered, as is the documentation, examples, 
test programs, and all the other material that goes with the library. A 
different implementation is free to use the same logical interface, 
however. Interface issues have been fought out in court several times; 
ask a lawyer for details."
Jun 12 2009
next sibling parent Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> writes:
Sean Kelly Wrote:


 Walter Bright wrote:

 
 If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is 
 copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.


 
 I think it depends.  Here's a clause from the Boost license page:
 
 "Does the copyright and license cover interfaces too? The conceptual 
 interface to a library isn't covered. The particular representation 
 expressed in the header is covered, as is the documentation, examples, 
 test programs, and all the other material that goes with the library. A 
 different implementation is free to use the same logical interface, 
 however. Interface issues have been fought out in court several times; 
 ask a lawyer for details."


I'm not a lawyer, I don't have access to one, and if I did, I'm not about to
spend the money, so it will have to stay GPL, as is.

Sad really!

Steve
Jun 12 2009
prev sibling parent Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> writes:
Sean Kelly wrote:

 Walter Bright wrote:

 If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is 
 copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.


 
 I think it depends.  Here's a clause from the Boost license page:
 
 "Does the copyright and license cover interfaces too? The conceptual 
 interface to a library isn't covered. The particular representation 
 expressed in the header is covered, as is the documentation, examples, 
 test programs, and all the other material that goes with the library. A 
 different implementation is free to use the same logical interface, 
 however. Interface issues have been fought out in court several times; 
 ask a lawyer for details."


The interface is the declarations, so I think we're saying the same thing.
Jun 12 2009
prev sibling parent "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> writes:
I've always been under the impression/opinion (having never spoken to a 
lawyer about this and not being a lawyer), that linking to a GPL library 
- even if you use a public domain .h file - still means you have to be 
GPL (or internal use only) because of the library itself.

I know (or think) it would be a different story to open the fifo/port 
and write to it in your own code.  Probably.  That seems like "software 
patent" territory to an unlearned not-lawyer like me.

-[Unknown]


Walter Bright wrote:

 Steve Teale wrote:

 I have posted this version 0.00 module on my DCat web page -
 http://www.britseyeview.com/dcat/ from where you can download it.

 The generated documentation is also there.

 The header files I translated to D are GPL. License experts out
 there, where does that leave the D version? At the moment I have
 retained the GPL header.

 I'd welcome comments.


 
 If you're translating GPL code to D, the result is a derived work and 
 therefore still GPL.
 
 If it's just a list of declarations, though, I don't believe it is 
 copyrightable, as long as you rewrite them and don't just copy/paste it.
 
 I think Linus Torvalds got sued over having an errno.h that matched up 
 with Unix's, same names, same values, and he prevailed.
Jun 12 2009