MySQL AB Settles With NuSphere

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)."

Comments

Cool

[InnovATIONS]

As long as I don't have to start calling it GNU/MySQL I will be satisfied.

Re:Cool

[InnovATIONS]

It's hard to be really creative when you are hoping for first post. I thought about saying 'imagine a beowulf cluster of these' but it just didn't seem to fit.

Re:Cool

[AndroidCat]

Ah, so you have seen the the cover the latest O'Reilly book?

However

[nizcolas]

What has not been settled is the debate over the pronounciation of SQL.

I got an email from Monty about it:

[Blimey85]

Hi!

MySQL AB is pleased to announce that it has settled its lawsuit with Progress Software Corporation and NuSphere Corporation. For more information, see the joint press release at

http://www.mysql.com/press/release_2002_14.html

Regards, Monty

More good news for MySQL

[ekrout]

With OS X came a bundling of MySQL, and CTOs (Chief Technology Officers) across the country thought to themselves that "Hey, if a big profitable company puts this package of OpenSource software into their flagship OS, it must be OK to use. Let's stop dishing out tens of thousands of dollars a year to Oracle and let's just use this free RDBMS implementation." (Sure, PostreSQL is a bit more weathered, but both are pretty nice considering their price).

Wider acceptance of MySQL and its related products/technologies is a good thing, and solving this NuSphere trademark violation is only a good thing in my mind.

Re:More good news for MySQL

[jazman_777]

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

Yes. What's so great about Oracle is that it uses Magic (tm) to store its data somewhere in the Matrix.

Re:More good news for MySQL

[Frater 219]

With OS X came a bundling of MySQL, and CTOs (Chief Technology Officers) across the country [...] PostreSQL

That's odd. I think you said that once before, typo and all.

Re:More good news for MySQL

[ChaosDiscord]

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

Yup. I also understand that for many applications, all you need is a filesystem with an SQL interface.

A department's home built inventory system doesn't really call out for the power of DB2. The registration system at one of my prior employers just held names, addresses, and a simple join to their registration keys, and all of this was done without the scalability of Oracle.

Choices are good. Heck, sometimes you need a database, but don't need anything more complicated than the ability to store key-value pairs. There is even a free solution for that.

An idea

[sheWhoWalksWithToesL]

We could start pronouncing it "squirrel".... As in "uh-oh", the squirrel is hosed." or MY squirrel is more secure than YOUR squirrel."

Re:An idea

[Iguanaphobic]

12567476521 and I'll raise you a palindrome.

Thanks for the support

[martenmickos]

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

Great FAQ on this whole dispute

[ekrout]

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.

What I think is particularly funny...

[Blimey85]

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.

Re:What I think is particularly funny...

[Bruce Perens]

The underlying database, which was Sleepycat the last time I checked, has been transactional for quite some time. Go look at their site or even read their book. I don't know what the status is of transactions in the SQL engine.

Bruce

Recap, FAQ

[nsushkin]

The original post doesn't explain the nature of the dispute. From the Dispute FAQ, I gather that the dispute is about MySQL trademark/brand.

• Monty created MySQL as GPL software and later formed MySQL AB to commercialize it.
• NuSphere sells non-GPL software statically linked to MySQL. NuSphere ships product in GPL violation. NuSphere acquires mysql.com domain.
• MySQL AB complains, MySQL AB tries to get mysql.com domain back.
• NuSphere sues MySQL for interference in business
• MySQL AB countersues for trademark and license infringement
• They bicker
• They finally settle

GPL

[vlad_petric]

It's good that they setled the dispute, however I think it would have been much better for the comunity if GPL were tested and proven valid in court. The reality is, there's tons of very valuable software under GPL, and noboy knows whether GPL is truly enforceable.

The Raven

Re:GPL

[RealAlaskan]

... 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.

Re:GPL

[Bruce Perens]

He's right. We can't find a sucker to be the defendant, because it very truly is a lose-lose proposition.

Bruce

Re:Overview of the issues, please?

[Anonymous Coward]

As far as i can tell:

• MySQL offers two versions of their product: a closed-source and a GPL version. The two are absolutely identical except for license. If you want to use MySQL, you just download the free GPL version. However, if you want to incorporate the code to MySQL into one of your own projects, you must either abide by the terms of the GPLed version, or you must pay MySQL AB-- the corporation who owns the copyright on MySQL's code-- for a license to incorporate the non-GPL-restricted version.
• Nusphere entered into some kind of "interrim" contract with MySQL AB whereby they licensed the code, to incorporate into their own "improved" version of MySQL. However, MySQL AB claims that this contract was limited-time, and had expired utterly by the time this next bit happened:
  
• Nusphere registered Mysql.org, on which they then set up and started selling their closed-source "improved" version of MySQL. This website presented itself as if Nusphere were the creator of MySQL, and did not at any point reveal to readers of the website that they were selling a product that was A) created by others and B) available for free elsewhere.
  
• Then Nusphere sued MySQL, but i don't know why.
  
• About a month after this MySQL sued Nusphere on two counts, first that they were in violation of the GPL by selling their product closed-source-- since the unrestricted licence Nusphere had obtained had expired by this point-- and second that they were in violation of trademark law, because they said that even though the GPL gave nusphere the right to the code, it did not give them to right to market under the "MySQL" name or at the mysql.org internet address.
  

Please correct anything i have wrong. There are a couple FAQs linked elsewhere in this discussion.