This is another question with 2 answers :-)

The GPL places requirements when you distribute the code (in this case MySQL or MariaDB) to some other recipient (like a customer). But this isn't the case for a web application, since you just run the code on your own server. In this case you can more or less disregard the GPL completely.

But if you actually sell or give your web application to someone else, then the GPL matters. Now, in this specific case all is still not lost for those who want to stay closed source. For a client-server database like MySQL or MariaDB, your application will only include a small client library that then connects to the database server. It is the license of this library that matters.

So for instance in PHP you already have a library that is under the PHP license, so PHP apps using MySQL don't have GPL anywhere.

For other languages there exist similarly BSD and LGPL licensed client libraries, but they are not yet fully feature complete (we are working on them). Contact me at henrik dot ingo at avoinelama dot fi if you want info on these libraries.

The answer to your question is yes, even though it doesn't follow from your parent comment as you may think.

What the parent comment is referring to, is called "dual licensing" and means that MySQL is available with an open source license, but also under a proprietary license, and some customers choose to "voluntarily" buy the proprietary license. The reason typically is that the open source license is GPL and the customer doesn't want to obey the GPL copyleft stipulations. ("voluntary" in citations, because in my years selling MySQL I've never seen a customer who voluntarily gave away money, still, the choice not to be GPL is their choice.) This model is not seen as conflicting with the OSI, since all of the code is available as open source, the customer just doesn't want it.

On the other hand, MySQL also engages in the same practice as SugarCRM, where there is an "Enterprise" version that includes proprietary-only modules. So yes, unfortunately MySQL is not fully open source.

(Disclaimer: I work for MariaDB, a fully open source fork of MySQL.)

Yes. Kind of.

The perfect solution would be to just abolish software patents. But as long as that is not happening, at least this is something...

There are 2 things that do try to address that:
1) Some trolls may decide to join the DPL pool, as this would give them access to inventions from the community, which they could use for new patents to extort money from those companies that remain outside the pool. Not all trolls would choose this, but there would be an incentive to do so.

2) It would create more pressure for producing companies to join the DPL pool. In a (rather theoretical) end scenario all practicing companies, IBM and Microsoft included, would have joined the DPL and only trolls would remain outside. In this case there would be no reason to continue with patents anymore, it would be easy to change the law.

In practice, scenario 2 will of course not really happen, just like all software will never be GPL. But it would apply pressure in the right direction: both for more companies to join DPL and for opinion to turn against patents.

(I'm Henrik Ingo, cited as having given Florian this idea, I got it partially from LWN myself.)

Uh oh, Bruce, are you having a bad day?

You could easily verify from Brian's blog that he nowadays works for nobody, having left Sun some days ago. He works on Drizzle, Monty works on MariaDB, different open source projects.

Monty is spending his time and significant share of money to work on an important GPL licensed piece of software and you're telling him to work on something else?

Brian is speaking up on something that for many years troubled him at MySQL AB. Last time I met you you yourself said that in your opinion MySQL AB FUDded the GPL. Now you attack Brian because of whom you (wrongly!) think he works for, even if what he's saying is something you (used to?) agree with. Is the truth dependent on who is speaking it?

What happened? Where is the real Bruce? Did your account get cracked?

Actually, the Europarl is big and there have been people who understand SW patents and copyrights very well, for instance in the Greens and even in the conservative bloc. It's just that for every such MEP there were also those with their hands deep in the RIAA/BSA lobbyists pockets. To have a new party running primarily on this theme will indeed make a difference.

You could see it on Swedish pre-election TV debates already. The PP wasn't even there (as a non-established party, this is normal) but the established ones (Greens and Left) would argue for essenitally the PP agenda, with the others grudgingly admitting to small pieces.