digitalmars.D.announce - MySQLD
- Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> Jun 10 2009
- "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> Jun 10 2009
- Kagamin <spam here.lot> Jun 10 2009
- Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Jun 12 2009
- Sean Kelly <sean invisibleduck.org> Jun 12 2009
- Steve Teale <steve.teale britseyeview.com> Jun 12 2009
- Walter Bright <newshound1 digitalmars.com> Jun 12 2009
- "Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> Jun 12 2009
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
"Unknown W. Brackets" <unknown simplemachines.org> 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
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.
Jun 10 2009
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
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
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
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
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