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.
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.
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
----
- 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.
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
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.
--------
Bleah! Heh heh heh... BLEAH BLEAH!!! Ha ha ha ha...
Sure it is.
It's going to show that it's important enough to be fought over.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Which witch watched which watch?
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.
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
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