On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 22:12, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Thursday, 2 January 2020 10:45:28 -03 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > On Thu, 2 Jan 2020 at 13:35, Thiago Macieira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > On Monday, 30 December 2019 18:03:04 -03 Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > > > We have the same licensing in Qt as MySQL does, for all practical > > > > purposes. > > > > > > Qt is freely redistributable, in source or binary forms. > > > > As is GPLed MySQL. We don't distribute GPL binaries in our packages, > > not because Oracle > > tells us we can't, but because that's a packaging policy decision. > > Ok, you're talking about the fact that linking to a GPL'ed library makes a > derivative work, according to the FSF, and therefore the plugin is GPL too. > I've heard lawyers interpret this differently, but the only opinion that > matters here is that of the lawyer representing the entity that is doing the > hosting and publishing.
I'm talking about what you wrote, which is "So the current MySQL maintainers (Oracle) made the choice for us by not allowing us to ship the plugin." They didn't make the choice for us, and they didn't disallow us to ship the plugin. We chose not to ship it. > This gets solved by linking to the LGPL equivalent. That's libmariadb.so.3. Yes, we can ship a mariadb plugin in any package we like, perfectly in accordance with our current packaging policy. _______________________________________________ Development mailing list [email protected] https://lists.qt-project.org/listinfo/development
