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.
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 couldn't agree more. Of course, if I was part of MySQL AB I would go to war too if someone was misusing my source and my trademark name. What else can they do?
On the other hand, poisoning the MySQL well might be NuSphere's intention. They do, after all sell another commercial database (Progress), the beast even runs on Linux.
This might be a good thing :). I am a very happy PostgreSQL user, and I personally think that it should get more use, it rocks. More importantly it stacks up in features against commercial databases like SQL Server. Comparing MySQL to Microsoft's SQL Server is ridiculous, but PostgreSQL compares relatively well (and the price is right).
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.
I'd like to know what in hell you're talking about. NuSphere has stated in for example the posting cited that "The Gemini table handler itself is already part of MySQL and is licensed under the GPL" and that "The Gemini component itself will be released via mysql.org as GPL as previously announced". NuSphere has given zero indication that they're going to challenge the validity of any part of the GPL. What gives you the idea that if a US court rules that a software license is invalid that suddenly the code becomes vulnerable to any and all use, and what indication have you had from recent US court rulings that the courts are about to give non-copyright-holders MORE rights over source code? The developers of MySQL have scrupulously arranged development so they control the copyright of the code. The issue is what exactly did MySQL AB and NuSphere contract for and is that set of agreements still in effect. It's orthogonal to the validity of the GPL.
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
----
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.
Hey, we're people. Arguing is one of the things people get excited about. This isn't so bad. It's too bad that it's going to end up in court, but it will probably be settled pretty quickly. (Esp. if NuSphere actually puts up the disputed code as GPL, public access, on Monday, as they indicated they intended to.)
... well, it could get a bit expensive.
The good things are that:
a) lots of people got to get excited, and think about MySQL, the GPL, PostGreSQL, and where they stood on all this.
b) nobody really got hurt.
If the court is quick, simple, and accepted by both sides, then this is probably a net win for the community. Otherwise,
N.B.: Putting up the code publically is a lot more than they are required to do. All that they are required is to furnish the code to anyone who got a binary from them in a legal manner, upon their request (for the next 3?, 5? years). A web site is a common way to do this, and public access is common. But neither are mandated by the GPL.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
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.
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.
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*
On the contrary. I did read those links. All I see is a bunch of petty bickering over a name. I thought everyone on here was above that stuff? I guess not. Sounds alot like the KIllustrator/Illustrator issue with Adobe. I guess when they are both GPL projects that makes it a crime huh?? While I agree that there should be a clearer definition between the two (name change for one maybe), I don't believe that the dot org folks have done ANYTHING wrong(except still using the MySQL name...MAYBE). I am all for making things less confusing, but this is just petty bickering that is not good for the OSS movement. Also, may I remind y'all that there's a product from a company in Redmond called SQL server....they have EVERY right to bicker about names according to your views on the issue (Little OSS project steals name of big commercial product....film at 11!). Maybe the MySQL AB folks should look at including some of their code instead of dismissing it (like some kernel folks have been accused of doing.....but at least they tell ya WHY!). Elitism is something OSS doesn't need either. We should all try to cooperate instead of them just dismissing something (or someone) entirely.
Gorkman
Trademark??? Trademark??? Where have they filed for this?? Can anyone produce a document that proves the filed for Trademark??? I find literally HUNDREDS of reference's to MySQL without the [tm] (or a trademark symbol) on the web site. In fact, I only see that they just started using this style when they started complaining about the dot org. I looked on most every page by the way. This whole thing is stupid and can be nullified in two ways. Either web site can get another name and rename their stuff. The dot org should be the one to do it, but the AB folks could get a major PR move if they did it. Besides, the words My and SQL are just about common words as far as I am concerned. Just like Illustrator huh? Also there are alot of cooler names out there for a database!
Gorkman
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.
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.
--------
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
- Dan I.
* 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
All this tells me is that I should not do business with either MySQL or NuSphere.
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
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
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