Slashdot Mirror
MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?
What follows is the Press Release MySQL AB has released attacking MySQL.org (and NuSphere). It was submitted to us by Marten Mickos from MySQL
MYSQL COMMUNITY THREATENED BY OBSCURE .ORG WEBSITE
Uppsala, Sweden, 12 July 2001 - Open source software company MySQL AB today announced that an unauthorised party has set up a website on www.mysql.ORG in direct violation of the trademark rights of MySQL AB and with the apparent goal to confuse the huge worldwide community of MySQL users.
Michael "Monty" Widenius and David Axmark, co-founders of MySQL AB and the creators of this world-leading open source database software commented "We normally welcome new sites that focus on the MySQL(TM) server, but this one violates our trademark and may lead users to wrongfully believe it represents the people behind the MySQL(TM) server. We were not contacted about this website and it operates without our authorisation. We cannot recommend anybody to visit that site."
The obscure .ORG site claims to offer free services, but a registration is needed for downloading the software that apparently has been copied from the official MySQL.com website. The .ORG site fails to display information of the people or organisations behind it. The domain was registered in the name of NuSphere Corporation, a subsidiary of Progress Software Corporation (NASDAQ: PRGS), on 4 June 2001. Both companies sell proprietary, non-open software.
The original and official MySQL.com website of MySQL AB is immensely popular and serves millions of users with free software, free information, and an opportunity for visitors to contribute comments and other things, such as additional tools and utilities. No registration is required for accessing MySQL.com. In addition, the MySQL(TM) server is a popular topic on several other open source websites such as Slashdot.
Yahoo! has been using MySQL(TM) servers in mission-critical applications for several years. Jeremy Zawodny, a member of the MySQL user community and an engineer at Yahoo! commented "I really don't see the need for the MySQL.org Web site. The MySQL.com site already contains a wealth of information and software from the MySQL developers and members of the community. I worry that the introduction of this Web site will confuse new users and potentially fracture or otherwise harm the MySQL user community."
Marten Mickos, newly appointed CEO of MySQL AB, commented "We consider operating the mysql.ORG site illegal activity and we are taking steps to enforce our trademark and other rights." In respect to how the MySQL(TM) community is served, he said "We will continue to serve existing and new MySQL(TM) users with software under GPL and free information without requiring registration. Our new 'portals' present an even wider array of useful information and services, and users are free to comment on the items there. At the same time, we have the best commercial support services for the MySQL(TM) server and as the owners of the software we are the only ones who can sell commercial licences." MySQL AB develops, supports and markets the MySQL(TM) database server worldwide. MySQL AB, the sole owner of the MySQL(TM) trademark, is fully committed to the Open Source philosophy and to making MySQL(TM) available and affordable for all. MySQL AB is a Swedish privately held company co-founded by David Axmark, Allan Larsson and Michael Widenius. MySQL(TM) is a trademark of MySQL AB in the US, Sweden, and other countries, and is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries. Other names are trademarks of their respective owners. For more information, please visit www.mysql.com or write to press@mysql.com."
Progress software corp/nusphere donated $2.5million (USD) to MySQL AB
Uhh, where in there or the press release does it say NuSphere has an exception? if it's there I'm missing it...
---
Posted by polar_bear:
Actually, I don't think the two are contradictory - Lets say you want to build a for-profit company around Free Software, giving your users the opportunity to enjoy the benefits of the code, but still need a way to distinguish yourself.
One way to do this would be to say that anyone can make changes to the code and whatever, but they cannot distribute alternate versions of the code under the name of your program -- I don't see anything wrong with this, really, b/c they have no way of performing quality control over someone else's code. They could still build a product based on this code, but they'd have to rename it rather than riding on the coattails of your success.
This has already been covered to some extent with Red Hat. You can redistribute versions of Red Hat, but you can't brand it as official "Red Hat Linux." Again, I don't think that's contrary to the spirit or terms of the GPL. Even RMS might have a problem if someone started distributing a fork of GNU Emacs this way -- especially if they included proprietary add-ons. Even if it was all GPL'ed, though - there could be questions of quality or whatnot.
When sap-db, Postgres, and Interbase are open and (mostly) ANSI SQL 92-compliant, isn't it time for the MySQL community to take the hint?
Sybase 11.0.3.3 has also been free on Linux for a very long time. MySQL has yet to catch up to this level of functionality, and yet I still know people who swear by MySQL.
I'm not up on this issue, but it seems to me that MySQL is in the midst of an angry code-fork.
Folks, it's time to switch.
There are two problems with NuSphere's version of MySQL. The first is the trademark violation, and the second is the fact that they are distributing a proprietary extension statically linked to a GPLed product. Both of these actions are illegal, immoral, and contrary to what most Free Software advocates believe is the right thing to do.
If NuSphere took the source code from MySQL and released it as NuSQL (or something), and they released the source code to the Gemini extensions, then that would be a horse of a different color, and I personally wouldn't have a problem with their actions.
One of the Freedoms that Free Software advocates are fighting for is the right to fork the source code. This happens fairly often, and it is considered good form to rename the new project. In the case of a trademark dispute, it is not only good form, it is legally imperative. No one in the Free Software world gets excited about the Emacs/XEmacs split, or the Samba/Samba TNG split, or the now rectified gcc/egcs split. Individual developers might root for one side or the other, but that's about competition, and not disgust.
What NuSphere has done is illegal and disgusting. Pretending to cover over their greed with statements about the "community" is ridiculous at best. If they cared about the Free Software community they would follow the GPL and release their source code. If they had an ounce of integrity they would follow Free Software "tradition" and rename their project when they forked it. The fact that MySQL AB has to go to court to push the folks at NuSphere into doing what's right (and legally necessary) simply shows how far removed NuSphere is from the rest of the community.
AFAIK there has never been such restriction. See RFC 1591:
"ORG - This domain is intended as the miscellaneous TLD for organizations that didn't fit anywhere else. Some non-government organizations may fit here."
In other words, "the TLD for the rest of us".
You have to keep in mind what RMS said. He said that you shouldn't have an opinion on "Intellectual Property", because the issues that occur on patents, copyrights, and trademarks are so varied. Instead you should discuss the merits/weaknesses of each individually. Trying to batch them together confuses the issue.
The reason for free software is freedom for the user. Trademarks do not really restrict user freedom. The idea of trademarks actually benefit the consumer in a meaningful way - they get to know who is giving them a product. Let's say a user is happy with the service RedHat does. Let's say another company calls itself RedHat, and starts marketing to you. How are you, the customer, supposed to know that its a different company? Let's say you are used to RedHat's quality of service, and then buy an enterprise product from the "fake" RedHat for a mission-critical piece of software. Something goes wrong, you call the number. This time, instead of getting the service you're used to, you get crap, because you went with a crap company masquerading as the real deal.
Trademarks are important. There are some abuses of trademark law, but all-in-all its a good thing (tm).
Engineering and the Ultimate
Actually, with write-ahead logging (found in 7.1) PostgreSQL is very, very fast.
Engineering and the Ultimate
Even if these people registered mySQL.com because they were going to be a business, you would think that they'd also run mySQL.org so that the community could have one site and the business a separate one, or that they'd know enough to have grabbed mySQL.org in self defense as soon as it became apparent that voluntary adherence to standards on the internet evaporated the instant that someone smelled the opportunity to use it to make a buck.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Well, yeah, except for that SQL part.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
Yeah, but Structured Query Language is a little more generic than say Texaco or Kleenex or even Pascal.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
The only disadvantage I've found of Postgres is that it lacks replication. MySQL has a replication facility that barely hobbles along if you carefully supervise it, but Postgres doesn't even attempt replication.
> services, but a registration is needed for
> downloading the software that apparently has
> been copied from the official MySQL.com
> website."
And?
If the mysql.com guys didn't want other people being able to distribute their code, they shouldn't have issued it under the GPL.
If they didn't want people to be able to modify their software, and distribute the modified versions, they shouldn't have issued it under the GPL.
If they didn't want to let other, possibly competing companies make money out of packaging and selling their software, they shouldn't have issued it under the GPL.
There is nothing, absolutely nothing, wrong with what mysql.org is doing with the mysql software. MySQL AB granted them those rights when they decided to release it under the GPL.
There is no ethical, legal or moral reason why they should not fork off a new code tree from the main distribution.
There is no ethical, legal or moral reason why they should not create a web site to distribute their version of the software, and to try to earn money from the product.
This isn't something going wrong, people - it's the GPL working EXACTLY AS IT'S MEANT TO.
As to the trademark issue, I think it's clearly against the spirit of Free Software to top other people using the name "mysql" if they excercise the rights you gave them under the GPL.
MySQL AB seem to have made a very bad judgement when they wen't GPL... they don't care about Free Software at all.
etc etc etc
From WordNet (r) 1.6 [wn]:
It seems pretty clear to me that unless Cmdr. Taco uses Open Source, he is in danger of having his opinions disregarded. And his site disregarded.
shows that it's designed to make people think it's run by the official developers. Yes, it does have the link on the bottom to mysql's real page, but most people will just start by reading the first paragraph and clicking on the links. If I hadn't already known what the real developers' site looked like, I would have been fooled.
I didn't like the tone of the press release, and I think the upshot is that it will substantially increase traffic to the other site as people look to see what the fuss is about. But since the org site appears to have roughly the same information as the official site, with little in the way of contributions to the community, I'm inclined to say it's not likely to work too well.
Curiously enough, I don't see anything at all on this site about Gemini; it appears to be dedicated to fooling people into thinking it's an official site, even to the point of soliciting contributions from developers (see the Developers link).
D
----
I wasn't one of them. :-) I thought Illustrator was kinda genericish, but still worthy of enough trademark protection that KIllustrator should change its name. I was rather upset when Adobe was threatening to call out the legal dogs of war on them, but that appears to have been a mistake.
I do think the case of mysql.com vs. mysql.org is worse. Though they appear to have a prior business relationship. I think mysql.org loses its right to the name when mysql.com decides to sever the relationship.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
If the guys that own the MySQL.com domain own the trademark, as linus does with linux. Then by alrights they can revoke mysql.orgs rights to the name and take a case before WIPO for ownership of the domain name.
Free Unix? Free Windows. http://www.reactos.com
---
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
In the open source world, you live or die by your name - your reputation is what gets you recognition, as a single developer (JWZ, Linus), as a project (KDE, MySQL) or as a company (SuSE, Mandrake).
Now, you'll note above that I listed MySQL as a *project* above. The problem is, there is also a *company* named MySQL who wants to clearly define themselves as an entity so that they can take crdit for what they do. As a recent example, I wanted to look into Everybuddy, the IM client, and I reflexively hit www.everybuddy.org to take a look. Nope - no site. (A quick fm:everybuddy in Konqueror found it). The point is, the dot Org is where many people start their search into new projects.
And it's still considered bad form, even if not technically illegal, to fork a project without renaming it. Almost every time a project is forked, a completely different name is given to it (Athera from Magellen, XEmacs from emacs, *BSD from BSD). That's just playing nice with your fellow developers. If the two different products based on the MySQL source (and yes, having a completely different table type means you're running a different server) want to compete on a fair playing field, both commercially and open source, they should be readily distinguisable.
And again, part of the problem is the fact that MySQL is both the name of a OS product *and* the name of the company.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
This reminds me of the entire Gallagher lawsuit. His brother, whose last name is Gallagher, starts performaing as "Gallagher". While he actually had a legal right to use the name, he did not make the audience aware that he was not "The Gallagher".
.com site) This is totally not cool.
From looking at both websites, I would not be able to tell which was the "actual" site. (Except the big "We're suing someone" on the
To use the slashcode analogy, don't even think of it as selling code, etc... It would be as if someone added new features to slashcode, set up slashdot.com, and started reporting news.
This is not as much about IP as it is about false and misleading buisness practices that could lead to problems for MySQL. If NuSphere published litigiously incorrect or defamatory information, offended the community, etc..., MySQL.com would be tarnished. Since there is no indication the MySQL.com has no relation to MySQL, MySQL AB could bear the brunt of NuSphere's mistakes.
What if it was Slashdot.com, news for racists, stuff that matters. Alot of people would be suprised when they forgot the "entire" URL you gave them. (Hmmm, Dave sent me to a slashcode based white racist group newsbank.... OOOH! Swasticka screen savers!)
This is the same as someone using Nabisco.org to sell porn. Judges have also backed this up in real world situations: Remember 1-800-flowers?? Someone else had 1-800-fl0wers... That's a zero. It was ruled trademark dilution and cease and desist orders were handed out.
I'm all for it....
~Hammy
"The reason I don't practice what I preach, is that I am not the kind of person I'm preaching to."
~BOB
OK, maybe I should not talk because I do think that kIllustrator should probably change its name.
However...
I think your point is nevertheless off base for the following reason:
1. This is not about "dilution of trademark", it's plainly stealing the trademark. These people are not even changing any part of the name. It's not kMySQL.org or MySQL2.org or anything like that. It's just plain MySQL.org
2. Since we all know how the TLDs are desperately broken, we realize that this would in fact confuse the users into believing that it is the official website of MySQL. You see most users just expect all trademark owners to own all the domain name for their trademarks in all TLDs. i.e.: coca-cola.org redirects to coca-cola.com (and it does), etc etc. Now, MySQL apparently did not do that (wonder why, $35/year is pretty cheap). Think of it this way: if pepsi had registered coca-cola.org and sold its stuff on it, do you think that coca-cola would have been wrong to sue?? I don't think so.
With appologies for being ever-so slightly off-topic, can someone explain the "Gemini table type"?
Well, thank you for pointing out the errors in my argument. I really do appreciate the corrections.
I did mean to say "date of registration of the trademark" and not "date of incorporation". I should have been more careful.
I didn't take into account the arbitrary-ness of the name "Foogiston" or "Foog!", though. Thanks for adding that.
I guess I should have prefaced all of this with a IANAL disclaimer.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I'm sorry, but I think that you're argument is incorrect. You're first assumption is bad, IMHO: you are not, in fact, defending your trademark by registering only the *.mysql.com domain name. Let's look at examples from another namespace, corporation names.
Example 1:
Company Foogiston, Inc. was incorporated in 1998 and makes Foogiston (TM) brand floogle-binders. Then, another company is incorporated in 2001 as Foogiston Systems, Ltd. and they make Foogiston Ltd. (TM) floogle-binders. Foogiston, Inc. is obviously upset, since it is very easy to confuse the two names and products. Foogiston, Inc. sues Foogiston Systems, Ltd. over the trademark, and probably wins, since they were incorporated first.
Example 2:
Foogiston, Inc. is incorporated in 1998 and makes Foogiston (TM) brand floogle-binders. Foogiston Systems, Ltd. is incorporated in 2001 and makes a software product called Foog! (TM). Since the companies have no common product, can Foogiston, Inc. sue Foogiston Systems, Ltd.? I don't think they'd win any such law suit, because they can't show that their floogle-binder product is hurt by the similar names. There's no material damage.
Example 3 (bringing it back to domains):
Foogiston, Inc. is a publishing house that prints Foog Magazine (TM), was incorporated in 1998, and has registered www.foog.com, www.foogmagazine.com (pointer to www.foog.com) and www.foogiston.com (the corporate website). Bill Whiteguy registers an online 'zine called www.foog-zine.net. Can Foogiston, Inc. sue Mr. Whiteguy because for trademark infringement? You bet they can, because it is a similar product (website content) that bears a striking resemblance to Foogiston, Inc.'s product (online offering of magazine content) in product and name. This has happened many times, both justified and not.
The difference here is that MySQL.org is selling a slightly different version of the MySQL.com product. This is even worse than the above scenarios, becuase it is not only likely, but inevitable that someone (how many pointy-haireds are out there?) will confuse these products because of the strong similarities in the products AND the names.
For MySQL AB to protect their trademark, they need to ask NuSphere to not use their trademarked name in a confusing and (what they most likely consider) abusive manner. Just like I can't set up Foogiston Systems, Ltd. and make Foogiston Ltd. flooglebinders, MySQL AB shouldn't let NuSphere sell a modified version of their GPL'd software from the mysql.org website.
The issue with gTLDs being useful in that "different entitiees with the same name can have a domain with their name in it" doesn't hold when similar, or in this case nearly the same, product is being sold. I won't address the rest of your remarks, because I feel that your whole argument is flawed as shown above.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
I wonder what Mr. Taco would have thought if three years ago (before the Andover takeover), someone set up a site called www.slashdot.com that had embraced and extended Slashcode and was selling it and support for it to websites without giving a dime to him. I think that he would be singing a different tune.
This is a fundamental problem with the "information wants to be free" argument that some people use to justify their Napster & software warezing/pirating habits: "It's just information (trademarks, music, etc.), and it should be free for me to do whatever I want to do with it". Unless it's my name, music, code, graphics, etc., etc. Then you find that you have to defend it.
This is a trademark issue. If you register a trademark, you have to defend it, or you won't be able to defend it in the future. I don't see any problem with someone saying, "Hey. I registered Foogiston, Inc. and www.foogiston.com, and I don't want you registering www.foogiston.org". What would have been better would be to register foogiston.org yourself, but if you got beat to the punch, you should still be able to tell someone not to use your trademark in their name.
I know that a lot of people don't like intellectual property here, but really. This is something that has precident and is defensible in court. I also don't like the language in the press release, becuase it shows a lack of maturity and professionalism on the part of MySQL AB, but that's doesn't detract from the core of their arguement.
Just my $0.02.
---------The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.
MySQL is GPLed, and NuSphere is _distributing_ (by selling it) an extension based on that code. Now, my understanding of the GPL and projects based upon it, would proscribe that NuSphere uses the opportunity of mysql.org to blast about the source code, if they don't talk about MySQL AB (and a small link don't quite cut it)
Am I the only one that is too stupid to find the link for the source of the gemini table types?
This is probably related to this description of the NuSphere product on the MySQL site:
NuSphere MySQL Advantage includes an unauthorized modified version of MySQL which includes support for GEMINI tables. As long as GEMINI is not released under open source, as required by the GPL license of the MySQL server, we at MySQL AB can't recommend anyone to use this distribution. Also, NuSphere uses our trademark in the product name and elsewhere without our permission.
The "elsewhere" presumably includes mysql.org.
Forget updating MySQL, when are people just going to go and get their get their features from PostgreSql?
I mean, are there any disadvantages to chosing PostgreSql over MySQL? This is an honest question.
As it has been said not at all.
For instance Linus own the Linux trademark, and only Linus can define what Linux, is by accepting or rejecting patchs. This is the only way to avoid forks, oherwise you may have hundreds of Linux, and you couldn't tell which one is the official one. Well in fact, in practice, you may have some variation on the Linux Thema with some patchs included or not, but no one can hijack say (Microsoft for instance) and release their own substalially different version of Linux while calling it Linux. The GPL allow them to get the soure code, but they can no longer call Linux if Linus says this is not Linux. They need to find another name.
I'll admit, the site is sneaky. They don't outright say that they are the primary developers of MYSQL, but they certainly don't go out of their way to draw attention to that fact. They have a single link on the home page to the primary mysql.com site, but they don't make a distinction that is what it is.
They require registration to download anything on the site, and they have opt-in spam requests by default, but they do seem to offer the source for download, so even if they were charging money for downloads, they're still not in violation of the GPL.
I can see the confusion issue over the name. They SHOULD at least change it, or at the very least they should put a big notice on the front page that they are not the trademark holders of MySQL and are only using the name.
As far as I can see, whats been done is what can be done. The MySQL people have put out a press release about it, warning people of the possible confusion. I suppose in the future, if you're planning to use a potentially popular name, get all 3 of the domains, and if any of the 3 are already taken, by all means, find yourself another name, thereby avoiding trademark issues yourself.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
(Well, if they're going to get that bent out of shape over a fork ... heh)
.ORG WEBSITE
.ORG site claims to offer free software, but sends users derivatives of the software that apparently has been copied from the official GNU ftp site. The .ORG site fails to display information of the people or organisations behind it. The domain was registered in the name of XEmacs Advocacy Group, on 28 April 1996. Both companies make non-proprietary, free software.
What follows is the Press Release the Free Software Foundation has released attacking Xemacs.org (and Lucid). It was submitted to us by Richard Stallman from the FSF
EMACS COMMUNITY THREATENED BY OBSCURE
Boston, MA, 1 April 2001 -
The Free Software Foundation today announced that an unauthorised party has set up a website on www.xemacs.ORG in direct violation of the trademark rights of the Free Software Foundation and with the apparent goal to confuse the huge worldwide community of Emacs users.
Richard "rms" Stallman founder of the Free Software Foundation and the creator of this world-leading Free text editing / programming software commented "We normally welcome new sites that focus on EMACS, but this one violates our trademark and may lead users to wrongfully believe it represents the people behind the EMACS software. We were not contacted about this website and it operates without our authorisation. We cannot recommend anybody to visit that site."
The obscure
The original and official EMACS ftp site of the FSF is immensely popular and serves millions of users with free software, free information, and an opportunity for visitors to contribute comments and other things, such as additional tools and utilities. No registration is required for accessing ftp.fsf.org. In addition, the EMACS package is a popular topic on several other free software websites such as Slashdot.
Yahoo! has been using EMACS in mission-critical applications for several years. Mr. J.Z., a member of the EMACS user community and an engineer at Yahoo! commented "I really don't see the need for the xemacs.org Web site. The FSF site already contains a wealth of information and software from the EMACS developers and members of the community. I worry that the introduction of this Web site will confuse new users and potentially fracture or otherwise harm the EMACS user community."
Richard Stallman, not-so-newly appointed leader of the FSF, commented "We consider operating the xemacs.ORG site illegal activity and we are taking steps to enforce our trademark and other rights." In respect to how the EMACS community is served, he said "We will continue to serve existing and new EMACS users with software under GPL and free information without requiring registration. Our new 'portals' present an even wider array of useful information and services, and users are free to comment on the items there. At the same time, we have the best contract programming / customizations services for the EMACS package and as the owners of the software we are the only ones who can sell commercial licences. Not that we would." The Free Software Foundation develops, supports and markets the EMACS package worldwide. The Free Software Foundation, the sole owner of the EMACS trademark, is fully committed to the Free Software philosophy and to making EMACS available and affordable for all. The Free Softare Foundation is an American privately held not-for-profit company co-founded by some benevolent folk on the east coast. EMACS is a trademark of The Free Software Foundation in the US, Sweden, and other countries, and is registered in Sweden and 13 other countries. Other names are trademarks of their respective owners. For more information, please visit www.fsf.org or write to press@gnu.org."
(Note: If you do not recognize the above as parody, Go Away.)
o/~ Join us now and share the software
Open Source isn't about being against copyright, or about being against other forms of IP, such as trademarks and patents. Open Source is about access to source code and acquiring certain rights along with it.
If an organization provides source to a product they have created, they have an interest in maintaining "consumer brand awareness". i.e. They want people to know that it was THEM who created the product. That is one of a few things that can help distinguish themselves from everyone else.
That is what trademarks are about, and no doubt why MySQL AB is concerned.
I kinda think that MySQL AB was stupid for not registering MySQL.org... but hey, that's a different issue.
"Why should I be content to simply live in this world, when I, as a human being, can CREATE it?" - Oertel
I'm not gonna try to slander the OS movement, cause I see it as a very good thing, but...
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source - releasing the content IP to the world freely - while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark - restricting identification/brand name IP from the world?
I don't care if a company doesn't release the source and fights for its trademarks - and similarly, it's a non-issue of someone puts out the source and doesn't enforce a trademark. But does a trademark on an open source product become free or not?
Then again, it's important not to confuse OS with free software. But how does the ideaology of OS affect trademark enforcement?
The problem is the website. It looks like the average free software website, and if I didn't know better, I'd think it was the official MySQL site. I think a footer of "not affiliated with MySQL AB, the creators of MySQL" would have been fine.
------
MySQL.org clearly violates 15 USC 1125(d) , specifically 1125 (d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) . Using a domain name of someone else's trademark was made illegal by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.
It also appears that MySQL.org is clearly violating the GPL by distributing a modified version without source code for the mods.
Nusphere is pretty far from a non-profit organization. But then again, so is Slashdot.
.edu now?
I once taught someone to write PHP code. Can I register for a
Maybe one of these two companies should work on bringing MySql up to the feature level of PostregSql.... It boggles the mind.
Just last night I looked into the possibility of running slashcode on my website. So, I read the FAQ and saw that I needed mysql installed. I instinctively went to www.mysql.org and downloaded the source. Now this morning I read this article, and I have no idea if I downloaded the 'official' mySQL or not! This is name dilution at its worst, and something needs to be done to stop confusing clueless newbies such as myself.
MySQL AB need to think about how that looks to companies who are evaluating database software. Do you think behavior like that will fill them with confidence?
The press release doesn't say NuSphere is obscure, it says that the www.mysql.org site is obscure.
It's going to remain obscure, too, if you have to register to download source, or even read documentation.
--
http://www.gimbo.org.uk/
MySQL is already defending their trademark by having mysql.com registered. The whole point of having different TLD's is so that different entities with the same name can have a domain with their name in it.
I can see how this might be a problem if MySQL did not yet have a web presence and someone else came along and squatted on mysql.* or something. But that's not the case here.
Once again, it comes back to the existence of gTLD's in the first place. It was a mistake. Only ccTLD's should be allowed. Let individual countries duke out their trademark issues as they see fit, under their own laws. We enlightened geeks know that MySQL is a Swedish company, thus mysql.com.se is the real domain. If someone else comes along and registers mysql.org.us, or heck even mysql.com.us that would be fine. I think the registrars should have very specific rules to disallow a single entity from buying up all the trademark.* domains.
The other solution is to go the other way, and allow any gTLD to be created, but nobody can own them, whether it's a trademark or not. So there could be a .mysql or even .microsoft but anybody could have a domain in it.
I don't like the latter idea nearly as well, because it throws trademarks out the window altogether, at least online. The former idea left it up to the country the company is from, which is where it belongs.
I have zero tolerance for zero-tolerance policies.
Constitutionally Correct
You mean Geekaustin actually has editorial standards? Maybe I should bookmark it...
Got Rhinos?
Have you ever been to Slashdot? You should try it sometime.
Got Rhinos?
This case is much sinister. MySQL is the company name not just a product that they make. It seems to me that NuSphere is trying to fool people into believeing that they have the genuine MySQL when in fact they do not. MySQL AB seems to be complaining because, 1. NuSphere is requiring registration to get software that they wrote. 2. NuSphere is releasing the Gemini table type in violation of MySQL's lisense (unclear on this but isn't it GPL?) because its not open. And 3. NuSphere is trying to capitalize on MySQL's popularity by stealing the name. I think the MySQL folks (no matter what you think of their database) are perfectly justified in their action. They don't mind NuSphere extending MySQL but they want people to play by their rules because it their work and they have that right.
"One World, one Web, one Program" - Microsoft promotional ad
The Anti-Blog
How can this extension not be not licensed under GPL? To extend MySQL some sort of linking would have to be done, and this would make their extension fall under the GPL unless they have received an exception from MySQL AB.
Well, I don't think that a view of Trademark good, other IP bad is particularly inconsistent. I like to think about it in terms of how it benefits consumers:
Trademarks help companies distinguish real products (ie, physical goods) from each other, which gives the consumer more accurate information about what product she is buying. This is good. Optimally, all trademarks would equally well describe the product in question, so that ownership of one doesn't give a company an advantage. (This isn't true in practice, but it seems there are plenty of "good names" left).
Similarly, "ownership" of ones password or credit card number is justifiable; the information has no real value aside from it being private.
Ownership of other kinds of information typically does not help the consumer. If a corporation "owns" a song, I can't share it with my friends, even if there's no way they could even detect that I did such a thing. etc. etc. You've heard all the arguments here.
For the most part, I agree with your post. Lots of wannabe free software kids have a tough time giving back, particularly when someone else steals their thunder (viz: even RMS!). I think there is a lot of hipocrisy in the community. The press release is totally immature. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a sensible argument in there, somewhere.
Just because he's an Open Source advocate (and rather vocal one at that) doesn't mean he should use what he views as inferior products to run his site.
If he chooses a closed-source solution to better run his website, who are you to complain?
I think that if someone did that to my project I'd be kinda peeved too... by not pointing people at the GPL portion of the project's main site, they are just asking for project splits. If I make a change, and I've only looked at mysql.org, I'd never know who to tell about my change to get it in the main distro....
---
I don't think .org websites should ever be for-profit businesses as that is not how that domain was intended to be used.
.org domain is intended to be a catch-all for domains that don't qualify for any other TLD.
That's a very popular misconception. The
Yeah, it's fast and supports transactions. BUT, at least in the last stable release, there were still some nasty catches. One I do recall was that the database could have no more than 1023 tables of the gemini type.
So if you do use it, make damn sure you read the docs on it and use it wisely given its limitations. IMHO, all of the new table types designed to give MySQL ACID-level database behavior have flaws, so you'd be better off using something with more mature suport if you need this (like PostgreSQL or a commercial rdbms).
--
News for geeks in Austin: www.geekaustin.org
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Right on the front page they even have:...
.com site, it's still every bit as much of a trademark violation. Disney spent a lot of time, money, and energy to present that name in a certain light, and trademarking it is what protects it.
If I go and register "www.disney.org" then provide a link over to the
This is outright wrong of them - they are just being bullies here
Trademark demands that you act as a bully. If you don't defend it, you lose it. Many of the rules involving trademark are wildly different then copyright. In my Disney example, if they didn't come after me hard and fast to give up the hypothetical disney.org site, they risk losing their trademark altogether.
This only becomes a copyright issue if NuSphere doesn't release the code they've added to their propietary product built on top of the GPL'd MySQL. One thing that's interesting here is that NuSphere is dodging this point by promising to release at some future date. This is LONG after they've been selling this code on the street. From a legal standpoint I wonder how long you can just promise to release before you're in actual violation of the GPL?
Lastly, NuSphere supposedly started up this site because they didn't like how MySQL's folks ran their development. Well, if they didn't like it, why are they still using the name MySQL? The reason is simple, and it's why we have trademark protection. NuSphere is utilizing the MySQL name to ride on top of it's good reputation that's taken years to build up. If they just named it "NuSphere's Database Hack", it would also take them years to develop a worthy reputation.
NuSphere is WAY in the wrong on this one. They know it too. They're just hoping their lawyers talk prettier then MySQL's lawyers.
The line must be drawn here. This far. No further.
This may have been added in the last few minutes but as of ~1 minute ago there was a link to http://www.mysql.com with the name of MySqul AB attached to it on the front page. And it is a very clean front page the link is very clear and obvious. So there is in fact a link to the .com site on the front page. And it does not say that they wrote it at all. It sounds to me like the MySql AB people are going way overboard on this one.
Cypherpunks: Civil Liberty Through Complex Mathematics. Those who live by the sword die by the arrow.
I thought the Gemini table type was included in the MySQL source package from MySQL.com? Gemini is mentioned in the docs. Maybe I'm confused with Innobase support, which is definitely included in the regular MySQL source distribution (and in the binary MySQL-max package). Innobase also supports row-level locking and transactional commit/rollback...we've been using it for about 3 months now and it works great.
(whoops...just checked the release docs for MySQL 3.23.40...it mentions that all references to GEMINI tables have been removed due to licensing).
It is really competition if they are distributing YOUR product? I think your argument might be valid if the website was run by somebody like Oracle, but NuSphere is simply talking AB's product and marketing it. This is not a bad thing per se, but it is a bad thing if the site makes people think that they are the producers of said software. One of the major sticking points in most trademark cases is whether the infrigment causes consumers to be confused. I think in this case it does, and I think MySQL AB has a solid case.
Enigma
Enigma
While MySQL is relatively distinctive, there are a number of cases where the mass-registration serves to make the entire domain system more of a mess. For example, the trademarked named for the company where I work happens to also be a not uncommon surname. I don't think there would be any object or confusion if someone with that surname were to register the corresponding .org and use it as their family vanity domain. If, on the other hand, one of our competitors were to register it and point it at their own site, it'd be an entirely different matter -- they'd be attempting to actively exploit confusion with our name in order to make a profit.
Similarly, I got screwed out of a vanity domain that I wanted. I had decided SSMH (for Syrian State Mental Hospital, something mentioned once in the H2G2 series) would make a nice, short, memorable domain. Unfortunately, the South Shore Mental Health Center wasn't content with just ssmhc.org. Instead, they felt compelled to grab ssmh.com, ssmh.net, and ssmh.org, as well. I suppose I could've always gone with a registration in one of the ccTLDs, but the .us domain (which corresponds to where I live) is a mess, and I refuse to help subsidize countries that've decided to whore out their domain space. Given a choice, I would vote to declare war on the Cocos Islands.
So exactly whom among you thought that Adobe should burn in hell for daring to ask kIllustrator to change its name? Who among those now think that MySQL.org ought to change ITS name?
It occurs to me that there are a lot of sheep wandering aimlessly; with no clue as to what is going on. Folks, you cant have it both ways.
Taco, how about it? Poll this, I'd love to see the results.
---
Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
What this smells like to me is an attempt by MySQL AB to shut down some competition by attacking the name of their website, not the competition themselves. If they had a problem with NuSphere, they could have went to them directly and asked them to do something else with the name. What they did do is a business attack pure and simple.
- "mysql.com and mysql.org are COMPLETELY different. I don't see how could anyone could POSSIBLY confuse the two."
- "If MySQL AB doesn't instantly sue NuSphere for everything they've got, they lose their right to the trademark."
- "NuSphere should move to Sealand. Or Afghanistan."
- ...
The notion that seems really foreign around here, though, is that there are issues of respect and courtesy that go beyond what you think the law could possibly allow you to get away with. If you want to run mysql.org, clear it first with the company that makes MySql.Unsettling MOTD at my ISP.
I'd mod tis up, but don't have any moderator points, so I'll just reply instead.
BUT, the creators of MySQL do and should be allowed to keep a trademark on their name. They put forth the original effort in writing the code, and should receive credit for it, regardless of whether its financial. By registering MySQL.org, NuSphere is getting the attention of people who weren't actually looking for the Gemini code, (had they been, they'd type in NuSphere.com)...
This happened about two years ago with Slashdot. Someone else had registered slashdot.com, made a framed page on which one frame led to slashdot.org and the other was a banner. Now I'm sure that everyone would agree that Slashdot should have been able to take over the slashdot.com domain, as the person who was owning it at the time was making money off of someone else's work.
This is no different. NuSphere is capitalizing on MySQL's name (sure maybe they're well-known too, but not nearly as well as MySQL) and MySQL should be allowed to keep their name.
just my panney's worth...
Unless they have a registered trademark or patent, there's not a whole lot they can do.
MySQL(TM) should have registered...
MySQL.com
MySQL.net
MySQL.org
MySQL.co.uk
MySQL.gov
MySQL.mil
MySQL.mars
etc...
...when they had the chance. That's what almost every other company does. Even slashdot (www.slashdot.org, www.slashdot.com).
In order to register as a ".org", an organization must meet certain criteria.
Is that still true? I know that such restrictions on TLDs have eroded over time as they proved unenforcable.
Isn't it self contradictory on one hand to produce a product as Open Source...while fighting vigorously to protect the trademark?
It's not hypocritical at all. It's very important that when a name like "MySQL" or "Perl" or "Linux" represents a standard for compatibility, that name remain meaningful. If it weren't for trademark law, malicious companies could embrace and subvert all our open-source languages by creating their own incompatible versions, releasing the code, and stealing the brand in public perception with a big marketing blitz. Most people are not going to take the time to sort it out if many sites are providing different versions of Perl, and if Microsoft pre-installed a "Perl" that only ran under Windows and allowed embedded Visual Basic, people would use it and think it's Perl. Only trademark law prevents them from doing this.
AbiWord uses this combination of copyright (to keep the code open) and trademark (to keep the name meaningful), and they have a nice FAQ about the AbiWord trademark which explains both the legal and the philosophical issues (see also this post).
All of that said, the real issue here is that MySQL was dumb not to register every available form of their domain.
If you are going to go all proprietary software on us, why don't you just go all the way and get a real database from Oracle or Sybase, so the response time aren't so shitty.
Is your company running tools written by ma
Also remember, MySQL has to defend its trademark, or run the risk of losing it. (IANAL)
GreyPoopon
--
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
Father in heaven,
Humbly praying that you will look upon the earth and find your servants who petition you with prayer, and weak such that my prayer is in public, I petition that you will consider me now seeking your guidance, and let me pray led by your Holy Spirit, that the conflict between people claiming to own things given by your grace to the earth will be resolved amicably. Lord, we are proud and vengeful people, who seek you not in all things; we are not worthy of your condescension, but you did tell us that if we pray to you for help, and if we pray sincerely, not wavering, we will receive your help, and so in the name of your son Jesus Christ, I pray you will send angels to prepare the hearts and minds of those men who are arguing about mySQL. We know that in your eyes, neither owns it, for all belongs to you, but that by your grace you have given authority to represent you to one or the other of these groups. Both have worked hard to make mySQL a better product for the user, and we do not always know whether hard work makes ownership valid, but we trust that if we seek your blessings, and your light, you will hear our prayer. Oh, God, there are so many other things we could pray for this day, but this is the one which we present to you in these moments, seeking that you will be glorified, that we will be humble, and Lord that into your hands we commit these things, that you will consecrate them unto the welfare of our souls, as we seek to draw near you and rise above the dark confusions which plague this world. Father, I love you though I barely know you, for the graces you have poured out upon your unworthy children made worthy by the grace of atonement; in the name of your only begotten, whose example of baptism showed that you condescended to earth, to the rules of earth, to glorify even them, leads us back to you as we choose, rather than by force or coercion, depends on the light to be shone, that men may see our good works and glorify our Father in Heaven, as you said in Matthew. Oh, God, be merciful, and raise us from corruption into incorruption, and cleanse us this day that we may serve you even in the midst of our poverty of compassion, Amen.
There is definitely a GPL issue just as you describe. In one of their products, NuSphere links their Gemini module statically to MySQL without publshing the source code for Gemini under GPL as they should.
But that product is not on the mysql.org site, and that's why this issue is not mentioned in our press release about mysql.org.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We have tried to get a partnership up and running with NuSphere, because we were enthused by the plans they had. But they did not live up the interim agreement we had, they used our trademark beyond what was agreed, and they didn't put Gemini under GPL as planned.
We don't mind competition or websites focusing on our product, but we do mind wrongful use of our trademark and other rights. They never mentioned to us that they were launching the mysql.org site.
Our business model is based on partnerships, and we are getting new partners every day, and we don't see them as "the competition".
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB