Re: License issues, MySQL

From: Mysidia (
Date: 08/29/01

On Wed, 29 Aug 2001, Artovil wrote:

> So, I am safe if I just distribute a patch file that only includes modified
> CircleMUD code that calls the functions found in the MySQL C API?  Id est,
> as long as I don't include any of the files from the MySQL API, right?  So,
> I could just write a detailed description of how to add the proper inlcude
> path to the Makefile as well as other options that might be necessary, right?
> Regards,
> /Artovil

If you wrote the function calls out yourself, then the code itself
that you wrote uh wasn't copied.. for copyright to matter you actually
have to be copying something or another.

Using the name of a function defined by an API is probably
not too much if any of a problem.

You probably have no issues provided you're not making a binary
distribution or including code written by someone else.

If you put out a patch, you probably wind up with bits and pieces
of circlemud in the patch.  That should be ok provided either
(1) You don't also wind up with bits and pieces of GPL code, or
(2) All the bits and pieces are written by you [as the author of
modifications, you can license those modifications as you like unless
circle made you sign an agreement preventing it which they didn't btw]

As a matter of fair use, it is at least widely noted that
software licenses cannot control what you can do with software
once you get it.  Although neither the GPL nor the click-wrap-
license-software people would prefer that be known, both
[in my opinion] operate successfully through scare tactics.

That is, even if the author wants it to, or even if the authors of
the GPL wanted it to, they couldn't force you to 'never connect your
GPL stuff with non-GPL-stuff', for example, because copyright only
governs well, copy and publishing, moreover -- that fair use doctrine
stuff ensures your end-user's rights to among things, their right
to make a copy for their own use (IOW - copyright protects the
right to copy -and- distribute) and use their legally-possessed
copyright material however they please (so, for example, it's
perfectly fine to make a copy of a CD you own for example provided
your copy only for personal use, though in the future the DMCA
may make it impossible to exercise those rights -- gettin' a lil
offtopic here).

Only way for the author of GPL'd code to stop that would be
essentially to force all users to sign a contract prior to legally
attaining a copy of the package, since once the user legally has
the package they have the right to use and copy it for their
personal use and can't be forced to agree to any contract <G>.

This is perhaps why end-user software EULAs "Point and click to accept"
agreements that try to govern your use of the software or prevent
you from *gasp* reverse-engineering it have in the past failed...
unfortunately, now, we have the DMCA which specifically forbids
reverse-engineering and does a bunch of other stuff that I don't
know about, and UCITA which could actually turn those shrink-wrap
licenses into contracts if you accept them (Even you've already
bought the software, they might be able to force you into more
contracts before you can actually use it), ugh... I can see it

"Install: By clicking accept you your soul is now the exclusive
 property of <inser large SW company here>.  Accepting is easy,
 just click accept, accept below, turn off your computer,
 press the X above, hit control+alt+del, pull the plug, or press
 any key."
"               [ Accept ]       [ Accept ] "

-Mysid the cynic

   | FAQ: |
   | Archives: |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/06/01 PST