Slashdot Mirror
MySQL & Nusphere
This is an update to the story a few days ago about the dispute between MySQL AB and NuSphere. MySQL AB has put up a FAQ about the dispute (note that it mentions lawsuits filed by both parties), and both parties have posted to the MySQL mailing list with more information: NuSphere's post, and MySQL AB's response.
Some More stupid shit, funny though
We are looking for talented individuals to contribute to the community. For those willing to help maintain the code, documentation, or support resources, please email support@mysql.org.
That's not something you normally hear from an party that isn't the developer of a product. It's deceptive at the very least, since they're not making it clear that they aren't the original authors or the current "official" maintainers.
This conflict might actually be good for the OpenSource community since if MySQL AB's suit goes to court it will be a good test for the validity of the GPL. So think twice before you complain about this public catfight. It might look ugly but something good might come out of it regardless of whose side you are on...
1. Bill Gates laughing himself silly over how publicly this latest open source food fight is being waged.
2. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporate decision makers crossing MySQL off their list of products to investigate. With Red Hat about to release their version of PostgreSQL, this is incredibly bad timing, to say the least.
One more thing--I'm surprised no one has pointed out that this is exactly the same kind of pointless turf war that resulted in the fragmentation of commercial Unix products years ago. Everyone is jockeying for the slightest perceived commercial advantage, losing sight of the big picture, and harming themselves and users. Very sad...
Yes, i realize this may be a bit offtopic. I'm just hoping to see if i can get some informed opinions while we're vaguely on the subject without it degenerating into a huge flamewar..
Postgres seems to offer a vaguely more robust feature set than mysql, but it seems to be a given that mysql is the product to go with and postgres is just kind of ehh, whatever, yeah it's out there. Why is this? Speed and speed alone?
What is it which leads mysql to be viewed as the default solution for the open-source community, given its featureset is by some accounts a bit minimal? What does it offer over postgresql?
For the record: i have used mysql in several situations, done perl DBI programming with mysql, and never used postgres. Moreover i have a perl database-backed-website library that i am interested in using but am not *quite* certain will work with any DBMS except Mysql. I am just curious as to my options, and wondering if someone could tell me what i am missing.. thanks.
Posted by polar_bear:
that both sides should just go back to the negotiating table and put this silly shit behind them. It's not doing anyone any good and it's giving corporate drones a good excuse to just buy SQLServer from Microsoft instead. C'mon guys -- learn to suck it up and make some compromises. NuSphere definitely needs to get off their ass and GPL the Gemini code yesterday, and they both need to work at resolving this. There's plenty of room for two commercial companies supporting MySQL without playing dirty tricks or slinging mud.
BTW -- Just b/c you GPL something doesn't mean you give up the rights to the name of the program, just that others have rights to the CODE. If I create something I have (unless I share them) exclusive rights to the name, and NO that doesn't go against the spirit of the GPL or take any rights away from users. It just means that corporation B can't fuck corporation A that's spent five years building brand recognition without screwing its customers. As far as the BSD license being the answer, you've got to be kidding. Why create something just to get robbed a few years later when a larger company appropriates it without giving anything back? That's just frigging stupid.
You are correct in that this is all an argument over a name (well, there is the separate GPL violation thing as well). However, it shouldn't surprise you that the MySQL AB folks would be upset over how NuSphere is using their name. I imagine that I showed up at your job, with a drivers license that said Chanc Gorkon and "borrowed" your paycheck you would be pretty upset too.
The MySQL AB folks have done all the development work for MySQL. They wrote the entire piece of software, and now the Nusphere folks are trying to hijack not only the project, but MySQL's good name as well.
As for the "little OSS project" NuSphere, the folks that acquired the mysql.org web site, is actually a fairly large commercial database company. They even have another database that they sell (called Progress). Compared to NuSphere MySQL AB is tiny. In other words you have gotten your prejudices confused. MySQL AB is the tiny Free Software company. They have currently written every piece of MySQL. NuSphere, on the other hand, is the "corporation." They have release absolutely no code, but instead are illegally bundling a statically linked library with the GPLed MySQL binary (which is clearly a violation of the GPL).
This doesn't have anything to do with elitism. It has everything to do with a commercial software company trying to muscle the creators of MySQL right out of the business that they created with their own work. If NuSphere wants to build their own "enhanced" version of MySQL, they should 1) change the name (as it violates MySQL AB's trademark), and 2) release their extensions under the GPL as MySQL's license requires.
That's a fairly razor thin argument. If they just wanted to create a "community" site dedicated to the advancement of the MySQL database why didn't they simply fork the MySQL codebase (legal) and rename their project to something else (legal). The Open Source developers working on the Phoenix database did precisely that when they split off from Interbase.
NuSphere didn't write the MySQL software, and they haven't released any MySQL related source code. In fact, they are currently in violation of the GPL. Yet all of a sudden they should be the ones creating the "community" site?
What dope are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing with the rest of us?
I understand the licensing issues this way. Nusphere wrote the GEMINI table tech and tried to submit it to MySQL AB, but MySQL AB would not take it unless Nusphere signed over copyright so MySQL AB could then turn around and sell closed versions of MySQL to developers to use in closed products...
Gemini is statically linked to MySQL. Assuming that NuSphere is using MySQL licensed under the GPL and not a separate license from MySQL AB, then they are required to release their modifications under the GPL.
If they allow their modifications to be downloaded by anyone, they have to make the source available to them. They can require a registration at their site without violating the GPL, but they cannot implement a separate click-through license agreement for GPL licensed code. The real issue is that they were not licensing their modifications under the GPL which is a requirement of the GPL license for MySQL.
They do not, however, claim to have created MySQL. Perhaps they should link to mysql.com out of courtesy, listing them as the primary developers.
--- http://foo.ca
Yeah, way to go folks. Let's show the corporations of the world just how the open source community, and companies involved in it, work. Let's show them just how childish and immature we can be, and how infighting can stop us from getting real work done.
As if the open source community didn't already have enough FUD to defend itself against...
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Gabriel Ricard
Defend your trademark privately as best you can. Don't get the whole world involved in your squabbling because all that you are doing is tarnishing the reputations of both firms.
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Gabriel Ricard
I suspect they did, since the product has absolutely no resemblence whatsoever to emacs the editor.
In any event, you can see that the owners of emacs.com are in no way trying to pretend they are RMS and solicit support. That's the key difference; in trademark law, you normally own a trademark over a certain domain (i.e. computer software). If someone created a mysql drink, then the use of the mysql domain name would be perfectly legal under most circumstances, since the makers of the drink were not trying to pretend they were mysql.
D
----
That's absolutely wrong.
The original emacs was developed at MIT in the late 1970s by RMS. It was originally written in Teco, a more primitive programmable text editor.
I know because I was there at the time.
D
----
The mysql.org site was undeniably designed in such a way that the uninitiated would think it was the official mySQL site. It was using the mySQL name to (from what I can see) hawk a product that's essentially an optional mySQL component.
An individual wise in the ways of the world would have registered mysql.com, net, org, etc to protect their trademark. It would have cost very little and would have prevented this problem. Sadly, then, Network Solutions is right in advertising that you should do this, even if their advice would seem a shade self-serving.
I am, however, quite curious to hear what Monty et al were paid $341,000-odd for. That's a pretty penny, and it seems like Nusphere should have gotten something in return.
Nonetheless, I think a thoughtful individual willing to delve deeper into the issues would most likely take Monty's side. He did develop mySQL, and the nature of the mysql.org site would appear to be highly deceptive and a misuse of mySQL's trademark.
I'll go after this by analogy: If someone created an emacs.com web site, claiming to represent the markers of that text editor, would RMS not be a tad upset at them taking his good name? This is the situation Monty is in. Remember, the main reward people get for pursuing a successful open source project is good publicity and ego satisfaction. If you take that away, you're bound to come up with problems.
Hope that helps give some perspective here.
D
----
It doesn't sound like it's the forking that's an issue... It's the forking, and almost deluding people into not knowing about it. Yes, to us it might be obvious which site is which. But if you've just heard about a "great, free database called MySQL" and you ended up at MySQL.org, you'd be none the wiser for it.
If they wanna fork, by all means do it. But they should try to make it a little more obvious about what they're doing than simply camping out at the dotorg website.
Adobe not worse off? /. in general, but I find myself rather appalled that a company like that is allowed to remain in business. True, I don't feel quite as badly towards them as I did during the period of time when they were saying "Give us all your money. I you fight this, we'll take your house and your pension too." to the author. At that point I thought the buildings should be burnt to the ground and the site plowed with salt. But their quasi-apology cut very little ice. They have shown zero repentance. And I am left wondering how many people they have driven to despair, because they didn't have a large public following.
I can't speak for
Adobe has acted in a way more evil than I have ever noticed MS acting. Of course, MS does it more frequently...
If this is what a lawyer for a spokesman buys you, then a public spat is a small cost. I don't feel that either of these companies has acted one tenth as vilely as did Adobe.
And this is during the agrument for the MySQL fracas, and afterwards for KIllustrator.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Because NuSphere's post talks about how they paid MySQL Co. for the 'right' to distribute MySQL under the GPL. Anyone's got that right, and the MySQL guy tore into them for that mistake. Absolutely clueless.
Unless you have access to the legal agreements and are a judge capable of understanding them (fat chance), your "blatent legal violations" is just more BS.
Before posting you should have to answer a key question from the article. Reading comprehension for the idiots who insist on posting ad naseum, making big fatty claims like "their other arguments are just sorry excuses" when their own posts are sorry excuses for ego building.
The FACTS of this case are not as simple as you like to make out with your smarmy legal citations. And if they are as clearcut as you make them out to be, MySQL will get a quick summery judgment. So please spare us your blather.
I remain convinced there is a lot of bogus and uneeded rhetoric going on here. Look forward to the resolution of the lawsuits, especially the trademark infringment one which will be the most interesting in terms of whether and how badly NuSphere has been violating the MySQL(r) trademark. I notice they even use it in their software products they sell. Illegal indeed, and a registered trademark offers quick protection.
- the software is available without registration, I just tried it.
- There is a trademark issue, but unless everyone on slashdot is a lawyer who has reviewed the agreements signed, why do they have all this "insight" into the situation. Let the courts determine if mysql.org is legal, that's what they are there for.
- Michael Widenius from MySQL AB claims "I want to stress that to date, NuSphere has contributed nothing, no money or source, to the development of the MySQL(tm) server." See the original statement here
- This is a direct contradition to NuSphere's claims of having paid some amount of money to MySQL AB. Hopefully someone somewhere has kept a copy of any checks written and we can figure out just exactly who the basterd liar is here and who is not. For open source, sometimes the truth can be damn elusive. Let's stick to FACTS instead of crazed hype on both sides of the issue. What we do with liar when we find them I leave to the masses :)
- While I'd initially side with the MySQL AB folks, their press release is rediculous, as is their followup. This is not life and death, if they think NuSphere is violating the GPL they should have the FSF sue, or sue themselves and set a good precedent. I hate open source projects that go ape-crap. Please, give us some credit for inteligence. Looks like a lot of hot air to me. Aside from the legit trademark issue where we don't know what agreements were signed, I see a bit of posturing here.
- the software provided is under the GPL, a good thing
- Nusphere doesn't want to sign copyright over to mysql when that would mean mysql could then sell closed source versions for closed source products. That's their right, who cares it's all open sourced.
- So before jumping around like chickens based an another overhyped press release, be it a corporation complaining about theft, or MySQL AB claiming all kinds of pretty serious stuff, let's let it simmer for a few weeks and then get involved.
The GPL has nothing to do with any of the problems here. The same would happen under BSD or even a closed license. Look at the Java / Microsoft case for enough proof of that!
Mod this post way down. It is the most unquestionably stupid and ill thought out post to reach even +1.
Slashdot would be a whole lot better if people thought for 10 minutes before posting as soon as possible.
Someone modded you funny. Maybe. But quite true.
Despite all the kvetching, the BSD license (especially with one of those 'advertisement clauses') could have made this a moot point. There's also no reason they couldn't have printed a GPL with an onerous advertisement clause.
Get over it. If one product is better than the other, than the market will choose it, the 'lesser' product will bring in the new code, and we'll start all over again.
Anyway, nobody is buying the fscking code. Who gives a rat's ass?
Is this a real thing, or did some dipshit VC put these guys (all of them) up to these lawsuits?
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
(3) is purely a question of contract law. MySQL AB owns only the trademark to the "MySQL" name.
Untrue, both parties to this dispute seem to accept that MySQL AB also owns the copyright to MySQL, which they license under the GPL.
The question of whether NuSphere violated the GPL is a red herring. To all appearences, they are in blatent violation, and the FSF should sue their butts to smitherenes.
It's difficult to see how the FSF would have any case at all. What is the supposed connection between the FSF and MySQL?
It's MySQL AB who own the copyright to MySQL and who license it under the GPL, they are the ones who can sue for breaching their copyright, they are the ones who are in fact suing for breaching their copyright.
But (unless the contract states so explicitly) that violation has no bearing on the validity of their contract with MySQL AB laying out the terms of their use of the MySQL name
Correct. And the trademark issue likewise has no bearing on NuSphere's copyright violation in statically linking their proprietary code to MySQL AB's GPL'd code. There are two separate issues, that's no reason to just dismiss one of them.
One could wonder what exactly NuSphere payed mysql ab for?
Mysql AB don't seem to think that NuSphere has anymore rights than anyone else. But if that is the case, what is the point in paying them 2.5 MUSD?
I agree it's an interesting question, but since NuSphere aren't being any more forthcoming than MySQL AB about exactly what the terms were , or even just a summary of the terms, it seems unlikely that the agreement clearly resolves the issue.
Just the fact that they paid a lot doesn't entitle them to receive a lot. Presumably they were happy with the terms of the contract, if it didn't actually get them much then that doesn't in any way entitle them to extra rights that weren't agreed to.
I don't see why it seems to you as though NuSphere did buy the rights to use the trademarked name, I certainly don't get that just from the fact that they paid a lot of money, what are you basing this on?
I think that it is fairly apparent that MySQL AB is right, however, why do they insist on LOOKING wrong by being so unprofessional? Typos, bad grammar, and universal statements litter their posts, and they behave like all around jerks. I find myself wanting to believe that NuSphere is right, simply because they know how to behave decently.
Which Swedish statements by NuSphere were you using as a basis for comparison? Seriously, you're a pretty twisted individual if you want to believe bad things about someone based on their use of grammar in a foreign language. Oh, don't tell me, they "should" be a giant corporation employing marketing people to prepare their statements, otherwise they "should" be guilty of something.
Your reference to NuSphere knowing how to behave decently loses me complaetely. Given that they don't behave decently, for example by violating MySQLs GPL licence, what makes you think that they know how to? And to be honest, if they know how to behave decently but choose not to then that's worse than if they didn't know how to.
that the MySQL AB response was as polite as it is. The personal affirmation of NuSphere's contributions strikes me as an extremely professional, given the fighting that's going on.
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
mefus
In Open Society, GPL Software frees YOU!
Forking is definitely not the issue. The issue is a fork with the MySQL name. That is not Ok. MySQL AB has the trademark on MySQL, and therefore, a fork cannot use it.
Obviously MYSQL and NUSPHERE are being payed ludicrous amounts of money from MS to stage a war set on GPL battlegrounds so Mundie can nod his head at it and say,
"I told y'all so!"
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
The big deal is that this fork is illegal. Part of the GPL is that you can't just take a GPL application and suddenly make it closed-source, which is what NuSphere is doing.
MySQL AB do not have that right either. They may hold copyright on the project but, being GPL, they cannot revoke its distribution conditions.
No, they aren't. They are claiming that their agreement with Monty and David grant them the right to use the trademark in various ways, including within a domain name. The statute you cite doesn't prevent a trademark owner from granting such rights.
There seem to be two parts to their disagreement that are legally pertinent (though IANAL):
1. MySQL claims the only agreement that has existed is the preliminary agreement and that it is no longer in force. NuSphere claims otherwise.
2. MySQL claims that the preliminary agreement didn't grant NuSphere the right to use their trademark in this way, regardless of whether or not it is still in force. NuSphere disagrees.
NuSphere's *not* claiming they have the right to use MySQL's trademark absent any agreement with MySQL. Rather they claim that they've been granted that right, a very different thing.
The courts, not Slashdot, will decide whose interpretation of the preliminary agreement is correct, of course, and whether or not any statements or promises by either side outside of that agreement are binding.
Unless they can find a way to settle out of court, of course...
With the use of new table types in MySQL (wait, this article _is_ about Gemini stuff, right?), row-level locking is available to eliminate these issues. I use InnoDB tables for anything that requires fast selects on a constantly updated table.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
You're confusing things by bunching together trademarks and copyrights under the obfuscatory category "Intellectual Property":
GNU GPL and the American Way
Not necessarily. The first question to answer would be with which country/court jurisdiction lays. Everything beyond that is pure speculation.
Is this disputed? They both filed lawsuits already -- what jurisdictions did they use?
No, they aren't. They are claiming that their agreement with Monty and David grant them the right to use the trademark in various ways, including within a domain name. The statute you cite doesn't prevent a trademark owner from granting such rights.
OK, if this is NuSphere's argument, then they'll bear the burden of proof to substantiate it in the courtroom. Otherwise, this will be an example of "If we agreed you could use it, we wouldn't be suing you."
But your point is well taken -- these are disputed issues of fact as to what was agreed upon. I expect it will take a judge about 3 minutes to read the black letter language of the agreement and determine who is right.
I find it difficult to believe that MySQL would ever agree to let NuSphere use mysql.org . I find it almost impossible to believe that they would have done so and not realized it.
MySQL.org clearly violates 15 USC 1125(d) , specifically 1125 (d)(1)(A)(ii)(I) . The term "MySQL" is a trademark of MySQL AB. Using a domain name of someone else's trademark was made illegal by the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.
Regardless of whatever complaints NuSphere has about getting the stiff arm when trying to submit code, they have unclean hands until they fix their clear trademark violation.
I would like to remind everybody that there were similar accusations of stiff arming associated with the release of Interbase by Borland. The approach taken there was to create the Firebird project by forking. Without trying to endorse NuSphere's complaints, even if they are true, the fork and rename plan is the honorable way to procede when you don't feel the project owner is fair. Until NuSphere fixes their blatent legal violations, their other arguments are just sorry excuses.
I use and recommend Mysql quite a lot in my work and I think all users have a big stake in it improving specifically with regard to transactions , advanced DB administration, and operation under heavy load. At least the first two seem to be addressed by Nusphere, which I will try out as soon as they provide the source code.
Since Mr. Mickos has made several public announcements about the case, in effect appealing to mysql's users and accusing Nusphere of criminal intent, I'd say he owes it to us to explain what exactly that $300K was for and what Nusphere got out of it. Mysql has neglected that little fact. It sounds almost like they took the money and expected that any guarantees would evaporate the next time the last digit of the version number changes. I doubt Nusphere is ignoring the GPL in a way that is hurting anybody yet.. besides themselves (heard about code review?) It sounds more to me that they are reluctant to give Mysql AB anything else until the responsibilities of both parties are made perfectly clear by a court.
Unfortunately they must be in serious trouble having paid so much money to Mysql for what Mysql seems to think is nothing at all. I thought their site was over the top at first too but now hearing Mickos' responses I'm not sure that Nusphere is so much in the wrong. So what's the real story Mr. Mickos? Mysql has done great work, but TANSTAAFL. You can't selectively disclose facts to maybe the biggest online group of Mysql users and think you will gain good will.
I'd sure like to feel better about Mysql and Nusphere both before I use their software again, as it is I'm waiting for that PostgreSql alpha we've heard about to make it into production servers.
*sigh*
Cheers,
Chris
Poof.
Emacs.com does exist, but it doesn't have to do anything with editors. It doesn't seem likely they independently came up with that name, though...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
I don't see what the friggin big deal is about all of this. It looks, to me, that the .org folks were guys that created new stuff for MySQL and tried to get it added to the official stuff but they could not, so they forked!!! The .com folks (MySQL AB) got pissed even though they released all of there stuff under the GPL and LGPL. Too freakin bad. That's the whole idea of gpl'd code. If the community thinks your moving in the wrong direction, they can always make a fork. What would be nicer is if they renamed the fork to something else as it's been done with several other things. Of course I may be totally wrong, but that's how I see it.
Gorkman
Yeah, you should let either Bill Gates or Larry "Gulfstream" Ellis ream your ass till your wallet bleeds.
Hey, you think your house is cool?
"San Jose International Airport officials have denied Larry Ellison's request to exempt his Gulfstream V jet from the airport's curfew. San Jose has a curfew that prohibits large jets from using the airport between 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m."
Hey, you think your house is cool?
> What is it which leads mysql to be viewed as
/.? Recommend it to everyone you know and sound like an expert. There's a lot of that about, especially on Slashdot.
> the default solution for the open-source
> community
It's easy. Any Linux weenie can get MySQL up and running and performing usefully in no time. None of the more involved aspects of a proper database have to be worried about.
That's why I like it. I don't want to have to worry about default tablespaces and rollback and atomic transactions and row-level locking and stored procedures for my website guestbook. MySQL is one step up from flat files, and that suits most people just fine.
Another thing of course is that newbies and over-zealous linux advocates will praise an open source product to high heaven with even the slightest encouragement. Don't know anything about databases but know MySQL powers
Or you could do business with PostgreSQL.Org, which does not require any sort of commercial license when linking your application with the database and then distributing the composite. This is the best option of all -- zero legal entanglements.
In this way, the issue is set aside so as to not widen the rifts between the companies and to keep the MySQL community together. Further, NuSphere has an opportunity to "re-affirm" its committment to the MySQL community and MySQL AB retains most of its rights.
The original press release from MySQL AB mentions the thread from an "obscure .ORG" site. I don't see how obscure.org is a threat to them. I'm puzzled.
What could they POSSIBLY want that for ? Maybe to develop a list of people they could target for NuSphere support contracts/sales ?
UPS Sucks
Sponsored By: NuSphere MySQL
NuSphere MySQL Advantage gives MySQL the power to handle transaction-intensive enterprise applications. With a pre-configured Perl DBI for MySQL, NuSphere MySQL Advantage gives you the power to build cost-effective solutions.
Not sure whether this is good, bad, or indifferent.
Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside?
icqqm [ICQ:11952102]
While other things you say are completely true, and sound like a good advice, in Open Source / Free s/w world... well, think again about letting lawyers send your message. It's a slap in your audience's/customers face to have to deal with legalese, carefully hidden double-talk and vague implications. In PR, lawyers should assist, but not lead.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Ok I see, I thought you meant the public announcements aimed at developers/users. You are certainly right in letting lawyers do the legal talk, at your 'enemy'. :-)
:-)
And it might be professional not to comment on the process while it's going... But then again, I feel OS people are more sensitive to moral/ideological issues behind the fights, and that you may need to issue some non-legalese statements to "your friends" too. I am sure glad I don't have to deal with these kinds of situatuons though.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Postgres offers great stability; and numerous features that MySQL simply doesn't offer - most notable being transactions.
Postgres scales real nicely, and while it once was slow and didn't handle large records well, both of these have been very well addressed in the most recent versions. A recent article at phpbuilder demonstrates quite nicely these issues. (current release is 7.2)
I use it, I love it! Why do people use that so-limiting MySQL, anyway?
-Ben
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Maybe it's the conspiracy theorist in me, but I have the suspicion this may be some pre-planned idea between the two companies. After all, this whole affair does some things quite effectively:
.org domain when the dust settles on this one.
1) Informs people that there are 2 companies that distribute MySQL (NuSphere and MySQL AB).
2) Increases visibility of MySQL.
3) Establishes the pro-facta site for the creator of MySQL... mysql.com
I estimate that NuSphere will give MySQL AB the
---
Hammer of Truth
I don't agree. If a company had the right to offer a commercial license than it is the company who has written the code, i.e. MySQL AB and not another one who was not involved writing the code.
If I had to choose between any third party company to pay for services or MySQL AB I would choose MySQL AB to honor the developer's work. Period. They deserve it first. Simple as that.
That doesn't mean that I think MySQL couldn't partner up with other companies to offer a combined product of technical support services, like for example RH.
That's American business tactics. You are always served with a surprise stab in the back in the last minute. It's just something European companies have to know, expect and learn.
It's shitty to have to be so suspicious, and probably, being always suspicious, one ends up misjudging the wrong people. But it is not your side who caused the necessity to be overly untrusting. Seems to me you were, as a small European company, just naive about the nature and goals of the NuSphere corporation.
Much better to just say, "Oh that, well, our lawyers are dealing with that." Then, when the issue gets wrapped up, the company can broadcast a press release summing up their stance in the issue and the result.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Perhaps we need Mundie to continue his assault on Open Source, so that all the leaders of the big projects are compelled to join hands and play nice to battle back the godzilla of the industry once again.
Back then Mundie first started his attack - on Microsoft's behalf - he provided a great service to the OSS comunity by creating a cohesive force by providing a common enemy. Now we're beginning to see the in-fighting we saw before Mundie attacked OSS in his series of ill-thought out speaches.
It's a shame that the OSS comunity can't remain more united even in the aftermath... Oh, well
--CTH
--
--Got Lists? | Top 95 Star Wars Line
[thinking out loud]: Who the hell moderated this post to 4-interesting??? unless this post supposed to be funny as a reference to the Microsoft press releases.[/end]
Are you still under the effct of Microsoft bashing GPL. Now I can see that Microsoft did a good job at it. They obviously consulted psychologists before their compaign and it looks like it works. So, you think GPL means you have to give away all your IP. I am not going to get into the mysql trademark and GPL doesn't mean that anybody can use your trademark. all these are discussed before.
Actually, Slashdot is interesting because people shoot from the hip. Sure you get a lot of noise, but that aids you in developing the bs filters needed to survive in the real world. As for .org vs .com; FOLLOW THE MONEY!!!
oops, did I say that?
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet (I, v, 166-167)
umm, nowhere in the quote that you copied from mysql.org does it say anything about the nusphere company or ANYONES responsability for development of the product.
If you'd read the posts that both companies had made on the mysql mailing lists, you would have read that the nusphere rep. stated that "As far as mysql.org goes, what NuSphere would like to see is a non-profit organization running that site - we have been consistent in this desire for over a year, but it has been opposed by Monty and David".
You would have also read the mysql AB rep. conceded to the fact that "We know that MySQL.com is not yet all what it could be. But we have worked on fixing this and we very recently showed our portals that will be the basis of much more easily navigable information on MySQL.".
Why do you insist on saying that NuSphere is stealing when nowhere in your post did you provide *ANY* evidence to that effect? Furthermore, the .org name-space was created for non-profit organizations to use and that's precisely what nusphere was trying to develop with mysql.org. MySQL AB OTOH is sitting in the backoffice planning closed-source releases of products with nusphere's gemini code in it... reeks more of opportunism on AB's part methinks.
* Removed all documentation referring to the GEMINI table type. GEMINI is not released under an Open Source license.
Not that I disagree with them doing this since the table isn't open source... but this fight seems to be getting nasty!
Top Most Bizarre/Disturbing Error Messages
It's interesting to see open source companies slug it out over money. And play dirty to boot. People seem to be shocked and horrified by this, being so opposite to the noble idea of open source. It is unseemly, but the fact is that everybody's got to make money, and some people want to make it from open source. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and even RMS (I think) said the "free" in free software refered to availablity not price. What MySQL AB is doing is using the rights that it didn't sign away under the GPL, it's trademarks and copyrights, to make money. These things enable them to sell comercial licences and do deals like the one that went sour. They have every right (legal and moral) to do this I hope they are sucessful in protecting them.
Just becasue someone gives away their code under the GPL doesn't mean it somehow becomes public property. Nor should it, even if people contribute. They've worked had to create what they have (code and company) and should enjoy the fruits of their labour. Becuase they are free and open with it doesn't mean anyone should take advantage of that.
This situation is very sad mostly becuase thousands of perfectly good dollars (or croner or whatever) will go to fat lawyers instead of paying programmers for code for everybody.
Reliable, Great Value Hosting: $7.95/mo 2.4G/120G
All this tells me is that I should not do business with either MySQL or NuSphere.
I think that it is fairly apparent that MySQL AB is right, however, why do they insist on LOOKING wrong by being so unprofessional? Typos, bad grammar, and universal statements litter their posts, and they behave like all around jerks. I find myself wanting to believe that NuSphere is right, simply because they know how to behave decently.
$45 per U Colocation Special
They have been in business for a long time, primarely with their RDBMS&4GL environment. At work we mainly use this product for development. Red Hat Linux is a supported platform. It's a pretty decent product, while the RDBMS may not be the fastest around, it is quite robust. Another adventure into the world of open source is the creation of an open sourced framework for the development of internet applications, POSSE
It's really sad to see the company whose software you use at work involved in this kind of mess. I surely hope that the issues can be resolved, this is not what we need in the fight against Bill of Borg :-)
While this background info may or may not help in clarifying the dispute itself, it may help understanding the NuSphere post Michael posted a link to. Meaning: I think that MySQL AB are the good guys in this situation, and the closed source background of the Nusphere people may have something to do misunderstandings that appearantly exist...
Cheers!
karma capped
Hell, no, they just consulted this very experienced 15 year old lawyer :-)
karma capped
There is more at stake to "IP rights" than ownership of ideas. In the case of trademark, it becomes ownership of your reputation. Your name is a proxy for who you are and what you stand for. That right transcends the ownership of code or ideas. You therefore would probably not want to condone use of your name in manners which wrongly associate you with things with which you have not chosen to associate. This is why things such as credit card fraud, libel, and slander are illegal. I don't think there is anyone arguing for legalization of these things -- at least, no-one in a position to be defrauded, libeled, or slandered.
One of the tricky angles about trademarks is that if you knowingly allow other people to use them out of context (e.g., naming their products or services with your trademark), your trademark can be stripped due to dilution. As such, it is essential that anyone wishing to keep trademarks protect them, even by giving a blanket license to those using them in order to allow them to continue to use them. Or, the trademark holder might not want to license, but that's their prerogative.
Would it?
The GPL gives license to the code, not the name. Even if the BSD license were used, the only difference in this case would be that NuSphere MySQL Advantage would be a legally closed-source product violating MySQL AB's trademark, as opposed to an illegally closed-source product violating MYSQL AB's trademark as it is today.
At least with the GPL, we have the possibility of opening up the source of this new product. This is the least that Monty deserves for indirectly having donated his time to the NuSphere project, without which NuSphere MySQL Advantage would not exist.
Gee, from the kind of response time that I get when I load up Slashdot, my impression was that you have been doing this all along.
Is your company running tools written by ma
So by "Business" do you mean you should not download MySQL and use it for free?
Run and catch, run and catch, the lamb is caught in the blackberry patch.
I don't get it. You got assload of cash from progress, giving them the right to do the following:
"MySQL AB agreed to allow Progress to participate in the announcement that the MySQL server would be released under the GPL License. "
Okaaaay...
"Under the interim agreement, Progress was allowed certain use of the trademark, "
You mean I can't download the GPL'd MySQL and advertise that I sell support for the product? What rights are we talking about here?
"to sell and distribute MySQL under the GPL license "
What do you mean? They already have this right. They don't need to buy it.
"to sell hardcopy printed MySQL documentation. "
Can't hardly be worth 2.5 million USD.
I think some real answers would be a good thing. What did they really buy?
One could wonder what exactly NuSphere payed mysql ab for?
Mysql AB don't seem to think that NuSphere has anymore rights than anyone else. But if that is the case, what is the point in paying them 2.5 MUSD?
My point is that it seems like NuSphere did buy the right to use the trademarked name (MySQL). in this case they should have the right to register mysql.org.
mySQL.org is dedicated to the promotion and improvement of the fast, free, and flexible MySQL database. We provide the Open Source community a center for free downloads, information and communication, as well as all the files you need to build applications based on MySQL, the #1 open source database.
mySQL.org is a free service to the Open Source development community. You may browse our site freely, but become a member so that we can keep you posted on new site initiatives. mySQL.org offers easy access to the best binaries and source available to database programmers.
We are looking for talented individuals to contribute to the community. For those willing to help maintain the code, documentation, or support resources, please email support@mysql.org.
They have their little spat with MySQL AB, and want to steal control of the software as payback. It reeks of opportunism. MySQL AB is doing an excellent job on their database and they don't need NuSphere stealing their work and trying to take credit for it. NuSphere can develop its derivative products just fine without trying to take the open source mysql away from its authors.
--The Shortcut
I disagree with the comment though that one should register every domain name related to their trademark. If a trademark is that proprietary, those domain names shouldn't be publically available in the first place. BUT, if someone is naive enough to invest their blood, sweat, and most of all MONEY, in possibly abusing someone elses trademark, that's a risk they take. If the trespasser get's slammed, so be it. The trespasser should have known better. Business is business; emotion and pitty have no place in that arena.
No, VA Linux did not buy MySQL AB.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
I'm willing to bet that most of us out there had no idea that there was a possible GPL violation going on with NuSphere's statically linked library code. Meanwhile, the way they talk, it seems that mySQL AB was aware about this for some time. What were they doing? Waiting for a public fiasco such as this to happen before bringing it up amidst the mud slinging? It makes mySQL AB look just as bad for having let it got this far.
We did all we could to prevent the fiasco. We flew thousands of miles to spend 3 days in Bedford, MA to resolve our differences. We thought we were getting somewhere, but on the last day we were to our surprise served with a lawsuit that ended all talks. This was 15 June 2001. Thereafter we did our homework and made sure we knew all the details and that we were not making false allegations. As soon as we could, 11 July 2001, we sued NuSphere for GPL violation.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
We DO own the source code of the MySQL server (and you may know that Monty has programmed most of it himself) AND we have decided to license it under GPL.
Anyone following the GPL terms may modify and distribute our code and build a business around it without specifically asking us for permission. But we still own the rights to the code. And, as you point out, we own the MySQL trademark.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
P.S. To be absolutely clear, please note that I say "server" above. There are third-party modules that go around and in the server that we do NOT own. The transaction handler InnoDB (GPL'd and owned and trademarked by Innobase Oy of Helsinki, Finland) is just one example of such a third-party module.
I strongly object.
Firstly, even the commercial licences we sell come with an open source, and it is the same software as under GPL but just under a different licence. You can always choose GPL if you want.
Secondly, we have NEVER asked NuSphere to sign over any copyright for Gemini. The cross-licensing idea is a nice bonus, but nothing our company hinges on. And we can always do it with other providers of transaction handlers.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Thanks for the comment. We have changed the header of our press announcement to say "obscure mysql.org site" in order to avoid confusion, and we have sent an apology to the obscure.org site, who where kind enough to inform us of the unfortunate wording.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
P.S. And talking about "obscure", we are happy to note that mysql.org is no longer obscure. After our announcement NuSphere has changed the frontpage to properly identify them having launched the site. If they now renamed it "nusphere.org" or something else, we would come another step forward.
Thanks for the question, please just call me Marten, and here we go:
First I have to state that we do NOT on Slashdot "accuse NuSphere of criminal intent".
Regarding the money, please see http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html and the question "Did NuSphere pay MySQL AB $2.5 million?".
On 21 June 2000, Progress and MySQL AB entered into an interim agreement. Under the interim agreement, MySQL AB agreed to allow Progress to participate in the announcement that the MySQL server would be released under the GPL License. Specifically, the interim agreement provides that on the day of this announcement, Progress would make a first payment to MySQL AB and would announce this as the first of a series of total anticipated payments up to $2.5 million. Progress agreed to continue making these payments at the level of $104,167 through at least August, 2000. Thereafter, payments by Progress and other arrangements, such as further arrangements concerning MySQL AB's control of the quality of goods and services promoted by Progress by means of the MySQL (tm) mark, were to be governed by a further, final agreement between the parties. Under the interim agreement, Progress was allowed certain use of the trademark, to sell and distribute MySQL under the GPL license and to sell hardcopy printed MySQL documentation.
Some people have asked us what we need "all that money" for. We have about 30 staff on fixed monthly salary who work full-time on developing the software and our services in different locations in the world. Once or twice a year we bring all our people to one location for a staff meeting. We avoid costly office premises and advertising. The company has so far been profitable, and the profits have been reinvested into the company.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
By defending our trademark we are precisely making sure that also those with "open source fears" can trust the product and the name and the company behind it. And, if it brings comfort, the copmanies that your colleagues might have preferred also defend their trademarks.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Please see our FAQ on the issue at http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html
We have not rejected Gemini from our source tree, and we have not asked them to sign over any copyright. InnoDB and BDB are other examples of third-party transaction handlers for the MySQL server.
In stead, we suggested to NuSphere a cross-licensing agreement whereby they could sell commercial licences of MySQL with Gemini and we could do the same.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB