Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL AB Settles With NuSphere

Posted by chrisd on from the exclamation-point dept.

PCM2 writes "It appears that MySQL AB has settled its dispute with NuSphere over use of the MySQL trademarks. CEO Marten Mickos has punctuated the occasion with a donation to the FSF -- but there's no mention of what the actual terms of the settlement were, and there's no statement on NuSphere's site either (yet)."

11 of 117 comments (clear)

  1. Re:More good news for MySQL by DAldredge · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You do understant that MySQL is not much more than a filesystem with a SQL interface, don't you?

  2. Kudos by citking · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm glad they both had the sense to overcome this legal dispute. M$ was probably ready for this to fall through and use it as a marketing technique for their SQL server. Whoops!

    --
    "This food is problematic."
  3. Overview of the issues, please? by scherrey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Can someone post a BRIEF summary of what the lawsuit was about? I can't tell from the annoucement what the issues were that were resolved.

  4. Thanks for the support by martenmickos · · Score: 5, Interesting


    We are very glad it is over now. Thanks to all of you (and there were many of you) who supported us through this process. You are doing a great job defending free software and open source principles.

    Marten Mickos, MySQL AB

  5. Great FAQ on this whole dispute by ekrout · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I didn't know much every single detail regarding this whole argument until I read this page of frequently asked question on the MySQL vs. NuSphere dispute.

    It talks about who actually created the software, as well as their take on others' claims that MySQL AB attempted to "change rules in mid-agreement" with NuSphere.

    --

    If you celebrate Xmas, befriend me (538
  6. What I think is particularly funny... by Blimey85 · · Score: 4, Interesting
    is the fact that Oracle won't allow benchmarks to be published without their written consent, and of course your not going to get their consent unless your benchmark shows them in a favorable light.

    MySQL on the other hand is much more open. Maybe that's because they are faster in most situations, or maybe it's because they really do have a better philosophy.

    If you look at what happened between MySQL and NuSphere, MySQL was never out to crucify anyone. They don't verbally bash anyone or toot their own horn. Look at what they say on their website about their own benchmarks and how they repeatedly point out that the competing products they have tested were not completely optimized due to their lack of knowledge regarding optimizations for those products.

    I think MySQL will eventually be the dominant database for two reasons:

    • It's easier/faster
    • It cots a lot less than Oracle
    And to top it all off, they are a company that we can feel good about supporting. I have a feeling that if they were to become as large as MS, they would never try anything dirty to gain greater market share or to hold on to what they already have. I think a few other companies could do well to learn by the example MySQL has given us. You don't have to play dirty to get ahead.
    --
    How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
    1. Re:What I think is particularly funny... by Frater+219 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      If you look at what happened between MySQL and NuSphere, MySQL was never out to crucify anyone. They don't verbally bash anyone or toot their own horn. Look at what they say on their website about their own benchmarks and how they repeatedly point out that the competing products they have tested were not completely optimized due to their lack of knowledge regarding optimizations for those products.

      It's still kind of odd that in their competitive comparison system, crash-me, some candidate features that are listed when you compare two other database products disappear when you add mySQL to the list you're comparing.

      For instance, transactions are excluded from comparison whenever you ask to compare a database with mySQL 3.23.39. (They are included if you compare mySQL 3.23.29, in which case crash-me correctly reports that mySQL does not support transactions.)

      Try it yourself. Go to crash-me with the above link. Check only the boxes for two non-mySQL databases (such as Oracle and Access, or PostgreSQL and Informix), and submit the form. Scroll down to the "Other features" section, near the bottom. You will see a row labeled "transactions". Now, go back and check the box for mySQL 3.2.39, and resubmit the page. Presto -- no line for transactions.

      I'm trying to see this in a positive or even neutral light, but let me be truthful -- I can't. I don't see any honest reason that this special case would be added to the crash-me code. The only reason I can see that mySQL.com would add this behavior to their test suite would be to conceal -- indeed, to "un-ask" -- the question of whether or not mySQL supports transactions.

    2. Re:What I think is particularly funny... by jeremyacole · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You've posted several other times about this. The "underlying engine" in MySQL is *not* Sleepycat's BDB.

      On most installations of MySQL, the "underlying engine" (which we call a "table handler") is MyISAM, an ISAM-based storage engine created by Monty Widenius, the founder and original creator of MySQL. MySQL has been from the start created so that the table handler could be easily swapped out for a newer/better/more featureful one if needbe. In version 3.23 we added support for Sleepycat's BerkeleyDB (which supports transactions and page-level locking) and also added support for Innobase Oy's InnoDB (which supports transactions, row-level locking, and multiversioning, among other features).

      You can find more info at:
      MySQL Manual: Table types

      Regards,
      Jeremy Cole, Sr. Trainer and Consultant, MySQL AB

  7. Is it really...? Oh let's not go there. by chrisleonard · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aargh ... how will it take until we start the "but is MySQL really an RDBMS" thread here?

    (don't click here!)
    (or here!)


    Oops, wait ... there, I've just done it!

  8. Re:GPL by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Interesting
    ... and noboy knows whether GPL is truly enforceable.

    If the GPL is not valid, you have no right to distribute any GPLed software, unless you own the copyright. You can still use it, and fiddle with it, and on and on. But the GPL is the only thing which gives you the additional privilege of redistributing it.

    I hear a lot of nonsense about ``... the GPL has never been tested ...''. It's nonsense because testing the GPl will be a loose-loose proposition for the challenger. If he busts the GPL, he's left with no rights, other than the right to keep and use the copy (or copies) that he has paid for. If he wants to keep his right to redistribute, with or without changes, he'd better not bust the GPL, because then his only rights are the rights you get when you buy a book.

    --
    See what I've been reading.
  9. MySQL in Swedish by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Actually in swedish MySQL can be pronounced "myskul" (not at all pronounced like "my skull" by the way...) wich means something like "cozy fun"

    Isn't that fun... and cozy.