At issue among other things was use of software said to be governed by the GPL. MySQL was alleging that Progress failed to include the source code for a software tool that NuSphere built and included in its MySQL Advantage package. The GPL stipulates that users can copy modify and redistribute a program but they must provide the source code. The judge ruled that NuSphere can’t market products under the MySQL trademark. Saris declined to get into the complexities of the GPL.

All in all, while Saris did not cover the GPL at length, GPL supporters look to this case and conclude that GPL did have its day in court, and that the court considers the GPL to be a valid license. One thing is certain: The GPL has become a powerful and pivotal force in the information age, turning the concept of copyright, as Open Source observers explain, upside down. Copylefting is a way of copyrighting a program and then adding distribution terms that allow everyone to use, modify, and distribute code as long as the distribution terms are unchanged. Any modifications need to be made available under the GPL. Created by Richard Stallman, the license has historical significance as a philosophical building block of Open Source.

A key driver behind the MySQL AB case, its CEO, Mårten Mickos, explains the case and its significance toward the future strength of the GPL in his own terms:

What led MySQL AB to place MySQL under the GPL?

Mickos: In the early days of MySQL AB, it was not clear which sort of license would best fit our company. By 2000, we felt we knew. The GPL was our choice because it was the most widely accepted Open Source license. Everyone would know exactly how MySQL was licensed. Moreover, it would open the way for a number of free distribution channels. Our software is now distributed to millions of customers by Apple Computer, Sun Microsystems, Red Hat and more.

In addition, it  has allowed us to continue to sell commercial licenses to those who wanted them, such as Compaq, Motorola, and Ericsson. We are under the GPL, but, as owners of the source code, we also sell commercial licenses for the same software. This enables us to benefit from the GPL and at the same time build a profitable business around commercial licensing.

Is the GPL for everyone?

Mickos: No. There are reasons to avoid the GPL just as there are reasons to go with the GPL. As a software developer, I would not use the GPL if my software was based purely on some specific and novel algorithm that I needed to protect. I would not go with the GPL if there was no auxiliary business to connect to the software. On the other hand, the GPL is an excellent choice to promote a standard or a standard piece of software.

Hewlett-Packard’s move with printer drivers and IBM’s moves with some of its development software are good examples. The GPL is excellent if the goal is to target a massive user base. Consider the fact that the GPL opens the doors to millions of developers and users.

And what does MySQL AB get from the GPL?

Mickos: As our license choice, the GPL has helped our company grow and prosper in three important ways:

It allows our software to be distributed all over the world without our intervention. That means we’re building brand and mind-share at zero cost.

It allows our users to help us build a better product by sending in bug fixes not just bug reports.

It allows our user base to build add-on and auxiliary applications and interfaces to continuously extend MySQL, which means a user will always will find the tool or application needed.

Many people were looking closely at your contract dispute with NuSphere Corp. as a long-awaited court test case for the GPL, where it was hoped that the GPL would be extensively reviewed in court. U.S. District Court Judge Patti B. Saris prohibited NuSphere from marketing products under the MySQL trademark but did not go into detail over violations of the GPL. Did the "GPL enforcement" question get firm answers out of the MySQL AB case?

Mickos: Absolutely! We showed the world that any company can take a GPL breach to court and enforce the license. Our lawyers showed that there is a logical line of defense for the GPL and that it doesn't pay to try to oppose that defense.

Any business operating under any legal constraint, needs to know it can trust the legal foundation. Look at Russia. It’s become important in recent years to be able to trust the government that you indeed can own real estate without the risk of losing it back to the government. Open Source companies must be able to rest assured that the GPL is a viable license that can be defended in court. Many companies large and small have built significant businesses relying on the GPL. This evidence is useful when having to counter FUD attacks from opponents of Open Source.

In particular, we showed beyond doubt that the GPL license is not a trademark license. This means that even when you are allowed to use a GPL-licensed product, you do not have an automatic right to use the trademark under which the GPL software comes. All events surrounding the GPL in the lawsuit indicate that the GPL is fully enforceable. At no time in the legal proceedings did anybody even suggest that the GPL would not be enforceable. We at MySQL AB felt confident throughout that the GPL is a strong document, but of course it’s good to get additional evidence thereof.

Have other Open Source companies thanked you for having defended the GPL?

Mickos: Don’t inflate our role as GPL defenders. We’re just one defender out of many. The Free Software Foundation is the one doing the big job here.

So what would you tell anyone who still doubts that the GPL can stand up in court?

Mickos: I’ve not met such people. If anyone did question it, I would tell the person to go ask the Free Software Foundation. Or they can ask Yahoo! and many other businesses who run mission-critical applications on GPL software every second of every day. In a less formal  situation, I might respond: "Try us!"

Click to learn more about MySQL AB's business model.