[Mono-list] Recommended MySQL Data Provider?

[David P. Donahue]

I didn't mean to spark so much debate :)

Anyway, now that my development machine is up and running again I'll be 
testing the official data provider, since that seems to be the 
recommended one.

As for the GPL concerns, I only use the data provider in a very much 
seperate data module (web service project that my other websites call) 
so there's not much actual code to be shared.  Nor do I imagine anyone 
will ask for it (it's my understanding that I only _have_ to provide 
GPL-ed code if someone requests it) because it's hardly interesting or 
revolutionary, and it's very specific to my needs.

Now hopefully I won't have to change much to accomodate the new data 
provider.  I remember some things being a pain before (MySQL TEXT 
fields, for example).


Regards,
David P. Donahue
ddonahue at ccs.neu.edu
http://www.cyber0ne.com



Marek Habersack wrote:
> On Sun, Nov 06, 2005 at 01:32:14PM +0000, Alexandre Miguel Pedro Gomes scribbled:
> 
>>Please take a look at:
>>http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IfLibraryIsGPL
>>
>>It states:
>>«*If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that
>>any program which uses it has to be under the
>>GPL?<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCIfLibraryIsGPL>
>>*  Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.» So,
>>I guess I was and I am right.
>>
>>If I remember right, there is something called FLOSS (or very similar) in
>>MySql license that allows you to release your application (the one linking
>>to a MySql licensed library) under a license compatible to GPL *and*
>>approved by that FLOSS. Not sure what that means but I assume that you can
>>do a LGPL library that used .net connector, thus allowing other to link to
>>your app with any other license, including closed-source.
>>
>>There is a workaround that I was told to work well - to make sure your app
>>works with other providers, like postgres, sqlserver, access, etc.... and
>>load the provider dynamically, that is, as an addin (using a xml file and
>>reflection....). Again, I'm not sure this works, but I believe so.
> 
> Qoting the GPL:
> 
> ---- CUT ----
> 2. [...]
> These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
> identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
> and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
> themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
> sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
> distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
> on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
> this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
> entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
> [...]
> ---- CUT ----
> 
> So, this is true that you can make sure your program doesn't have to abide
> by the terms of the GPL by constructing it so that the program is not
> entirely dependant on the MySQL connector assembly. Thus, in my
> understanding, using the ADO.NET interfaces for your work fulfills that
> requirement - you can make your code generic as far as the RDBMS used is
> concerned. Also, I think, the other solution you mentioned - using code
> that's licensed under a GPL-compatible license should be sufficient. You, as
> the author of your application, hold all the rights to the source code and
> the license that governs its use. Therefore, you can create a "glue" assembly
> (it would have to be a separate DLL referenced by your app) and license it
> under (e.g.) MIT _and_ GPL - leaving the user of your code the option to
> choose which license applies to the code of the assembly. Your application 
> would link to the MIT/GPL assembly, thus "separating" your application code 
> from the GPL piece. According to some lawyers I talked to, it would also be
> necessary to include a clause in your main application's license, that it
> can solely be licensed under the terms of this or that license, or otherwise
> your application users could, by implication, assume that since your app
> links with a MIT/GPL assembly and they can use one of those licenses, then
> your application can be considered GPL-ed if they select GPL instead of MIT
> for the glue assembly.
> All of this is very blury and unclear, but that's unfortunately what GPL
> forces us to do in certain situations and is, IMO, one of the greatest harms
> the GPL does to the free software community (this is my personal comment
> only, so please ignore it if you don't agree with it and if you really want
> to discuss it, please write me off the list)
> 
> best regards,
> 
> marek
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Mono-list maillist  -  Mono-list at lists.ximian.com
> http://lists.ximian.com/mailman/listinfo/mono-list