Not linking but rather using - auto download OK?

[RB]

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 21:42, John Hancock <jhnhncck19 at googlemail.com> wrote:
> From reading answers relating to "derivative work", it seems that I
> wrote a confused ( or confusing) message - my apologies for that.
> Although I mentioned the word "link" in the beginning of my message, I
> did try to clarify at the end that I wouldn't be linking (either
> statically or dynamically) to any of the code in the GPL-ed software.
>
> In the case of MySQL (brought as an example), it would be just using
> it to store/retrieve data using SQL statements. If this is considered
> ""derivative work", then anyone using MySQL in his/her web site would
> be considered violating the GPL terms - doesn't make sense...

It may be you who is confused.  If you had done enough homework, you
would know that a common test for GPLv2 is to evaluate whether or not
library X may be trivially replaced with alternative Z.  In the case
of a database, this typically means that, at a minimum, you must use a
3rd-party client (like ODBC) and you may not use any engine-specific
syntax.  If your typical user could trivially point your product at an
alternative backend, you're more likely to be fully disengaged.
Regardless, your project probably doesn't fall under their FOSS
exception (http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/foss-exception/)
and the point is moot.

> As for consulting a lawyer:
>
> 1) I have yet to see a lawyer that would give warranty on his
> advice... You can pay A LOT of money to a lawyer, only to discover
> that when time comes, you loose in court (similar to the current
> situation with health insurance in the USA...)

Consider attorneys "legal engineers."  You will seldom find an
engineer that will give a 100% guarantee, as there is always an
outside possibility that things will go horribly wrong.  Most that do
are fools, hedging their bets, or have had a great deal of money spent
to ensure their calculations fall within N standard deviations.

> 2) Even if the lawyer gave "warranty" on his work, it seems to me that
> it would be much less expensive to simply buy a proprietary software
> with the proper license (just as Microsoft allows re-distributing
> certain libraries, free of royalties).

Ceteris peribus, it is typically less expensive to follow the letter
of the law than to hire an attorney and walk the grey areas.  All you
have done is make a clear case for making a pragmatic business
decision.  How does the cost of a MySQL ISV license compare to, say,
the time it would take you to re-program against a more liberally
licensed database?  Or against using a compatible license and changing
your model to selling support more than software?  Even more
ominously, how does it compare to being sued and being issued a C&D,
taking your software and reputation off the market?

> 3) I currently don't have any income to pay lawyer. :(

Then you probably don't have the money to do business in the US, where
the question of litigation is "when" rather than "if", not to mention
other legal issues: taxes, incorporation, etc.

> Anyway, I chose MySQL as an example. If MySQL is a "special case",
> let's choose Apache (the HTTP server) as another example:
>
> Suppose I bundle Apache (without any modification) with my software,
> not linking to it (whether statically or dynamically), not sharing any
> structures. Instead, my software simply uses it redirect certain HTTP
> traffic to an Intranet. Is this considered aggregate (instead of
> derivative) and thus complies with the GPL terms?

As others have noted, Apache is under a completely different license
that is more similar to the 4-clause BSD license than the GPL.  Apples
v. oranges, and not a subject of this list.