On 06/14/2014 12:59 PM, Richard Fontana wrote:
On Fri, Jun 13, 2014 at 07:13:08AM +0100, Mark McLoughlin wrote:
Forwarding a question from openstack-dev about the implications of our use of mysql-python, which is a GPLv2 licensed library.
It looks to me that mysql-python is actually dual-licensed under GPL "or the original license based on Python 1.5.2's license", which would seem to be the simple noncopyleft Stichting Mathematisch Centrum license in the Python license stack. Not sure if that helps. I'm not clear on whether the concern is mysql-python or extends to the fact that MySQL itself is GPL-licensed.
So, first of all - I'd like to say that in my non-lawyer opinion, there is no problem. However - there are at least three potential things that might want addressed: 1) mysql-server is GPL'd. This might be interesting to people who are shipping complete solutions. Quite honestly, nothing about MySQL'd GPL license should attach unless someone is modifying MySQL itself, which is massively unlikely 2) libmysqlclient is GPL'd. MySQL Inc did this on purpose so that they could extort people into paying for licenses they didn't actually need. It's important to bring that up because 3) mysql-python, as you say, is dual-licensed, but it uses libmysqlclient under the covers, so as vague as several of the other issues are here, I think it's pretty clear that mysql-python has to be GPL, since it quite explicitly is a derived work. So the question at hand is whether or not the license of libmysqlclient carries through and attaches to OpenStack. I contend that it does not, for a specific reason: we're using it as an optional plugin. We don't use mysql-python itself. We use sqlalchemy, which has pluggable provider support. One of the plugins that can be used with sqlalchemy is MySQL. Another is Postgres. Another is Oracle. Etc. So nothing about OpenStack _itself_ requires MySQL or libmysqlclient. It is a runtime/deployment choice. However, I am not a lawyer - but the above is why I don't think it attaches or is a problem.