MySQL.com vs. MySQL.org?

An interesting twist has popped up in the Open Source database market. MySQL AB (the company that develops the DB by the same name, and owner of the .com) has sent out a press release (attached below) attacking NuSphere for running MySQL.org. NuSphere has extended MySQL with the very cool, but not open source Gemini table type (which we are seriously considering using on Slashdot and kick ass over anything MySQL has), and are doing tons to promote it in the US. The press release is pretty brutal but I find myself mixed on the issue: Afaik its not a GPL issue, but rather a trademark and name dilution issue. What scares me most is the hostility in this press release, and also the fact that we will see more of this sort of story with other open source projects being abducted and by companies that didn't write the code. Personally I don't have a problem with this stuff happening, but I'm not MySQL AB. Update: 07/13 10:30PM EDT by C :As always, it appears that there is more to the story. Many of you were right to assume that these maneuverings might be due to a business deal gone sour, and that seems to be the case as reported by NewsForge.

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."

Comments

What's in a name?

[Masker]

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.

I'm so confused...

[jerkychew]

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.

gemini table type better only by comparison

[StandardDeviant]

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

Re:I'm a little confused here...

[cavemanf16]

NuSphere may not be 'obscure', but the mysql.org website seems a little deceptive. If I didn't investigate it more, I wouldn't have known the difference between mysql.org or mysql.com just by looking at the front page of the website. MySQL.org presents their website in a manner that does not give credit where credit is due.

For one, if you go to mysql.org you will find that it doesn't say whether it developed the software, it just says it's got mysql software available for 'free' download. But the mysql.com guy is correct, in that you cannot download any software without registering with mysql.org first. That indicates to me that it's not 'free' because now mysql.org has customer data to use to market their product to. Plus, it doesn't say: "Hey, we didn't write the software, mysql.com is where you can find that info. We just improved upon it." Besides, I don't think .org websites should ever be for-profit businesses as that is not how that domain was intended to be used.

Oh please, the hypocracy is going to kill me

[SumDeusExMachina]

Jesus, Taco, you beat the open source drum all day and every day here at Slashdot, and yet you are planning on using a closed source program to power the site.

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.

Re:Hypocritical

[s20451]

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?

Not at all. Trademarks exist so that an individual company that has built good will based on a particular, recognizable product name will not have that good will hijacked by others seeking to either slander it or profit from it. This may be even more relevant in the open-source world, where anyone can take your source code and do what they want with it.

Say I release an open-source software package called Foo. The package receives a following and I decide to trademark the name.

Example 1: Somebody takes the source and corrupts it (e.g., by opening security holes), then releases a competing package also called Foo. The public becomes confused because of this "bad Foo", and good will based around my package called Foo is lost, due to this competing version.

Example 2: A company -- let's call them MacroSoft -- takes the source and uses it to release a closed source version which they call "Foo for MacroSoft". Let's say I used a license other than GPL so that there's no licensing issue, and they sell the product for a tidy profit. In this case MacroSoft is profiting on the good will created by my hard work, even though they did very little themselves, while I see nothing.

So, in other words, to prevent OS projects from becoming corrupted, I believe trademarking is not only consistent with the aims of OS, but necessary for it.