Slashdot Mirror
Is MySQL Planning a Change of Tune?
Iggy writes "After reading the article on 'The MySQL License Question' by Timothy R. Butler at Open for Business I just have to wonder, is this company's wording on the MySQL site indicating the company is backing away from Free Software, specifically, the GPL? Great reading and certainly thought provoking."
Like a lot of us are. Their interpretation is a bit off and I'm sure they'll correct it.
Consistency in licensing is important, whatever they choose I hope they stick with it.
This has been in the offing for sometime now, why would anyone chose MySQL over PostgreSQL if they had to pay for it? It may be faster but it does little more than can be done with a flat text file and Perl. Suicide.
developing all your php apps for use with mysql... lets start seeing more postgresql projects.
Meh.
People will switch to PostgreSQL faster than the MySQL folks can type GPL back into the license. They will be crazy.
Nothing to be concerned about here, folks. Move along. Move along.
If they change the license, can't we just fork from the last GPL release?
Couldn't anyone create their own fork from the last GPL'd source?
Shh.
I can't get to the article (/.), but assuming this is not FUD:
With all the "Postgres is so awesome" stuff I keep reading (well okay, mostly on here), if MySQL backs away from open source, it could be the beginning of the end for them with "the geeks" (ie. us).
I'm not that familiar with Postgres, but I just checked and their website says:
The above is the BSD license, the classic open-source license. It has no restrictions on how the source code may be used. We like it and have no intention of changing it.
Sounds good to me!
MYSQL is my preffered lightweight database, but if they stop being open source, POSTGRESQL will immediately take it's place.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
If a prorietary software vendor wants to package MySQL with their product I'm glad MySQL AG is getting a few bucks out of it.
It doesn't seem to negatively affect the free software developers.
I've always liked the idea that you could release a product under a Free license but keep the option to sell versions to companies as well.
I realize that this doesn't answer the question of whether the GPL itself allows this kind of dual license but it seems to me that TrollTech does something similar and that has never bothered me either.
Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud.
If they wanted you to own it, they would have named it that way.
PostgreSQL gets another boost! :)
Seriously, if you haven't used PostgreSQL, consider it for your next project. I use both, but have ended up using PostgreSQL a lot more. It's a much more serious database, and really isn't any more difficult to setup and manage than mySQL.
8.0's introduction of point-in-time-recovery is going to be a huge boost to enterprise applications of PG!
Exactly who will fork this, who is this mythical we?
The code is so huge that only the core developers have much of a clue of what is going on. Apart from those few people, there are not many who will be able to get up to speed and take the project in a new direction.
This is a gray area I think. If you are distributing, then people are getting your software. At what point does a distribution system cross the line from interal to beyond? Seems that it is a slipery placeto be since leaks could happen very easily, especially with larger companies and corporations. Could you defend you position that you did not want to distribute a program by branding the souce code and binaries with warning like "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE"?
TheirSQL
*snicker snicker*
Someone help me out, i've poked about in the GPL and *think* i understand what it means, but what happens when:
a package is released GPL style, then the devs decide that's not exactly what they wanted and decide to change the license....er, what happens then? Are the old versions still under GPL? Is the new code, regardless of the newly chosen license still bound to the GPL since it's based on the older code? What about re-writing all the code new - that wouldn't be covered, but how close is too close to the old code?
This article just made me wonder a few things, someone help me (others) out here.
There are others to take its place, that will never have such license issues ( like berkeleyDB, or postgresSQL )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Well, if MySQL decides they need to change the license, then fine...I am sure they will loose some users, but it will not be their downfall. Perhaps they could something like http://www.bb4.net/ has done, where they have a fairly functional free, version, which is still open source, and a "professional" version which has some additional features and support. Really not a bad idea...
MySQL is a great product, as well as Postgres, but a change in licensing for MySQL will not be as bad as it may sound...
Changing the license at this point will hurt mySQL bad. Postgres has some big backers now and is already more feature rich than mySQL. Take it form me, I was a mySQL addict and then my boss introducted me to Postgres. I look at mySQL as a kids toy now.
I can't wait till 8.0 when I can start writing my stored procedures in Java. W00t.
Let's see.. lot's of us make money using their DB... mostly "free" non enterprise versions. They are not getting anything with this, so they are trying to make some profit, changing their "interpretation" of GPL.
Fucking a fat girl is like riding a scooter... it's fun 'til someone sees you.
Wait, wait.
MySQL is licensed with a "dual licensing scheme":
1. If your product talks to MySQL, you must release it as GPL.
2. If you don't want to GPL your product, pay MySQL $450.
So... according to the GPL, can't I fork the GPL version of MySQL, not change a thing, and allow companies to use "HerSQL" for free, keeping "HerSQL" as GPL?
Further, don't a lot of web applications that are not GPL interface with MySQL? Doesn't this violate their license?
Now, I am not sure if this is true, but since MySQL is GPLed, doesn't that mean that they have some freelance programmers that contribute to the project? If they leave the GPL, that may encourage a devolper move to Postgre, helping it become a better DB.
That said, this statement made me chuckle a bit:
Let me get this straight. Because it allows linking with PHP and Apache -- two systems which incidentally are fundamental to MySQL's continued success -- this is proof of their love of free software and freedom? Call me cynical, but it sounds more like proof of their love of avoiding irrelevance.
Can you imagine?
MySQL AB: We are pure GPL!
Developer1: Isn't the GPL incompatible with the Apache/BSD style of license?
Developer2: According to the FSF it is.
Developer 1: Aren't the Apache web server and PHP under Apache/BSD styles of license?
Developer 2: PHP used to be GPL, but yeah, now they're both like that.
Developer 1: So if I sell a complete package with all three, I'm legally in trouble?
Developer 2: Looks like it.
Developer 1: Well, I guess I'll install PostgreSQL then.
MySQL AB: MySQL FOSS exception!
Developers 1 and 2: Wow! What nice guys. They're really sticking their neck out for us on that one. Thanks!
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
the sky is falling
MySQL is going to screw everyone.
Just because one person's twist on that interview says that MySQL is about to turn evil, doesn;t mean it's true. Read the article, not just the /. headline
I actually think that the article is very fair, but it's considerably more in depth than most people who only read the /. headlines will know.
Nothing great was ever achieved without enthusiasm
Interviews
The MySQL License Question
By Timothy R. Butler
Editor-in-Chief, Open for Business
August 13, 2004, 11:15:53 EDT
MySQL AB's namesake database is a package that many would list among the crown jewels of Free Software. The Swedish company's database has been deployed over five million times by the company's own count. Yet, some, quite legitimately wondered if certain wording on the MySQL site might indicate the company is backing away from Free Software, and, more specifically, the GNU General Public License. We wanted to know if this was an actual concern or simply a misunderstanding, so OfB contacted MySQL AB to find out more information.
The whole question arose from the text MySQL AB publishes on its web site concerning why one would need to purchase a commercial license for its software. "When your application is not licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that externally to customers or internally within your organization), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL product," the site explains. At press time, the remark concerning internal distribution had been removed after the commercial licensing page was revised based on user feedback, MySQL AB told OfB.
At first glance, this might not catch anyone's attention, but after considering it, it becomes apparent that this sounds like stricter requirements than those laid down by the General Public License. For example, the Free Software Foundation's documentation on the General Public License, which they wrote, explains that "[y]ou are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them." The document then continues, "This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization." If this is the case, a company desiring to keep its code private would not need to purchase a commercial license as the MySQL site indicates.
The information on MySQL's commercial license page also seems to be a bit far reaching when it suggests that one's program must be licensed under the GPL or another Free Software license if MySQL is distributed with the product. A good analogy here is that it is legal for a proprietary web browser to communicate with a GPL licensed web server, and vise versa -- the programs are communicating to each other, but not actually combining code together. In the same way, it is theoretically possible to communicate with the MySQL server either using a third party Free Software tool that allows linking to proprietary packages, such as one licensed under the LGPL or BSD licenses or by developing a proprietary program that can communicate with MySQL through networking protocols. In plain English, this means there are ways that one could have a proprietary program communicate with a GPL licensed program without violating the GNU General Public License. Furthermore, simply distributing a proprietary product and GPL licensed product together is called "mere aggregation," something explicitly permitted by the GPL.
One developer from a small consulting firm who requested anonymity explained his concerns about the issue and how it had led the company he works for to have all of its clients purchase MySQL licenses out of fear of litigation. "MySQL AB has bent the intentions of the gpl to say that any proprietary application I write that causes my customer to have to install a copy of MySQL, whether or not it uses the MySQL client libraries, must be licensed under [the GPL]."
We wanted to know if this assertion was correct or if MySQL's site was simply a bit confusing on the point of when licensing is required, so we contacted them. Zack Urlocker, MySQL's vice president of marketing, agreed to answer our questions on the matter.
The big question we wanted to know was if
Because of its licensing issues... I never quite understood it. But right now, I have no doubt, or your program is GPL, or you should buy a f---ing license, no matter what OS you use. I'm happy though that I'm investing some time on Firebird, which has much better licensing, and I expect to use PostgreSQL as well...
The article states that this doesn't effect free software at all. Only commerical software that links to MySQL requires a licence, as it always has been.
Maybe you should email the FSF. They're the gurus on all legalese GPL.
tasks(723) drafts(105) languages(484) examples(29106)
Let's not forget about the recent changes of the MySQL client to use the GPL instead of the LGPL, since such a change hardly suggests that they're looking to dump the GPL. This change was widely publicised, as it caused issues (which have now been resolved) with other non-GPL open source applications which previously shipped with the client software - PHP being the prime example.
On the other hand, I do think MySQL really wants to push their commercial license as they "recommend" it for everyone who use MySQL in a commercial environment, even though their dual licensing scheme only requires the purchase of a license if you plan to be distributing MySQL itself. It'll be interesting to see how this all unfolds, but I don't think the GPL version of MySQL is going to go anywhere, at least not for non-commercial users. While commercial users may face stronger "recommendations" to purchase licenses, I don't see any actual changes to the license requiring a license for commercial use without distribution. Doing this would shut out millions of entry level hosting providers, and it wouldn't be long until MySQL's massive market share fell to alternatives such as Postgres or SQLite.
The copyright holder for a given work (piece of code, whatever) can license it according to whatever terms they'd like. If they release a copy of the work under the GPL, then that copy can be used according to the terms of that license. Meanwhile, if they wake up with a humorous streak and license it BSD-style with the added requirement that to use the code you must paint your nose purple, that's fine, too.
Think of releasing a work under a license as analogous to attaching a tarball to an email message. The recipient (licensee) has a copy of the work and whatever permissions you granted. You still have the tarball and can send it to another recipient and grant that recipient different permissions. (Of course, once you start getting into exclusive licenses, et al, you're out of the scope of this post.)
ill be happy if they change the license away from the GPL and it happens to run their marketshare to nothing.
Honestly I never understood what people saw in mySQL other than the FREE aspect, and if that was the only thing they were looking for Postgres, Oracle (for personal use), and MSDE (MS sql server free ver) are all much better tools for the same price.
?SYNTAX ERROR IN LINE 42
That's terrible...
On my last project, I used OBCD specifically so I could use one DBMS today and I or my in-house customers could replace it with another one later with minimal effort.
There are other ways of doing the same task, such as using wrapper functions for your DB calls.
This approach isn't appropriate for every project, but before you start coding, you should ask yourself "will this ever be used on another DBMS, what can I do now to save myself work later, and what will it cost me in terms of schedule, functionality, performance, etc."
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
At what point does a distribution system cross the line from interal to beyond?
The owner of copyright in a computer program has the exclusive rights to authorize distribution of copies of the program to the public. I would take a reasonable guess that copyright case law defines "the public."
Could you defend you position that you did not want to distribute a program by branding the souce code and binaries with warning like "FOR INTERNAL USE ONLY -- DO NOT DISTRIBUTE"?
Of course. See also trade secret law.
I worked on a commercial project that was Apache/PHP/MySQL on linux ... i talked to them long and hard about licencing ... even calling the US (I'm in Australia) to talk to a person (Gerald i think it was) about the licencing. They seemed quite unsure in themselves about what you could and couldn't do with MySQL (being GPLed) and the MySQL API which was (at least at the time) LGPLed.
... that or how long it'll take for people to fork a free version.
... ppl are telling me i should anyhow!
I think this sort of article could be a good way for MySQL AB to find out how much support they'll loose if they turn around and change the licence
If they become non-free I'll gladly move to PG
"everyone passes through an abassador"
Give your cold to Contac!
How many web hosting companies offer PostgreSQL in small-business virtual hosting packages, compared to MySQL?
Communicating with a database via "TCP/IP or another protocol," such as ODBC, is not in any way a circumvention of the GPL. This is what ODBC is for, for heaven's sake, there's nothing sneaky about it.
Following MySQL's moronic licensing innuendo, you would be required to use GPLed software to talk to a GPLed web server. Unfortunately even the unixODBC guy who was quoted didn't make the point that connecting to a database server from a client program (on a remote machine or on the same machine) using ODBC is morally equivalent to connecting from a client program to a web server using HTTP, and so the same rules must apply. The FSF guy didn't make that point either. I can understand why these free software folks feel some need to stick up for each other but someone needs to drive a stake through the heart of all this licensing idiocy, it doesn't help anyone.
Now before I get modded down, I be to remind whoever might read this that what I am saying is FACT. - bogaboga
This was fun! It kinda makes me want to write a timeline of when MySQL developers would publicly and loudly assert that certain features were not needed and compare it another timeline that proudly announces the formerly useless feature in their newest revision.
Might be as much fun as reading the MySQL gotchas pages. "Foreign keys only serve to slow database engines down." Wait a couple of years... "MySQL 4: Now with new enterprise features like foreign key support!" Wash. Rinse. Repeat.
Those who forget the past are doomed to extended use of a debugger.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
"we're about to make ourselves irrellllllevannnnt..."
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
I suspect that someone in the Open Source world might just do it out of spite and a big legal staff...
Of course, the more likely case is that everyone moves to PostgreSQL (which I use anyway) and MySQL withers away. That's what happens to FOSS projects when someone gets greedy; the community routes around the damage.
Of course, if the MySQL folks try to attack PostgreSQL on patent grounds, the case is MUCH more likely to go to The Nine...
"My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on espresso."
Funny that the article didn't mention the $19.5 million series B round of funding received in June 2003...
That's gotta do something...
I'm a bit late to the game, but there's been more than a few postgres posts lately, so I'll ask,
It *seems* to me (after the few pg books and articles I've read) that I need to create shell/system accounts for users to grant those users access to the postgres database. Is that correct? If so, I can see why mysql has taken off more from an administration standpoint - it has its own set of internal users separate from the system its running on.
Am I missing something here?
creation science book
If you read closer, they are actually talking about a grey area that some people (read: me) perceive in the GPL. Let's say you develop a proprietary application that links to a GPL library. Say KDE or MySQL. If you don't _distribute_ your application you are fine, but lets say you deploy the application internally. In this case, under the terms of the GPL the employee who your app was _distributed_ to could demand the source to your application under the terms of the GPL, no?
If not, why not? MySQL seems to be suggesting, as does QT, that this is indeed the case while on the other hand MySQL and KDE zealots insist that it's not a problem. But please explain to me why it's not the case, why an employee cannot demand their GPL-derived rights to the source when a binary is distributed to them.
501 Not Implemented
Do you open source finatics really think a company can soley exist on giving its product away?
Do you really think that a company with any type of overhead can exist without charging you something for its service or product?
Time to pull your head out of the sand and wake up to reality.
For those of us that use Windows there's now a Windows version of PostgreSQL available. Check it out at here and here.
This whole topic reminds me of question to which I've never gotten a good answer.
One of the supposed benefits of Open Source in general is that lots of people can contribute, add features, fix bugs. This includes the GPL.
GPLed code and GPLed contributions stay GPLed forever.
MySQL is GPLed. MySQL sells a commercial license. Do you really believe the commerical version of MySQL has ZERO GPLed contributions to it? No bug fixes from anyone outside AB? No feature additions from anyone outside AB? While I admit it's remotely possible, if there are no outside contributions to MySQL then what's the point of it being GPLed? If there are then it's illegal for them to redistribute a version of MySQL with the GPLed contributions in it under some other license.
Thanks for all the feedback!
Let me here present the background logic behind our licensing policy and software policy in general.
MySQL AB is probably the world's largest company that has published all its software under the GPL licence. Over the years we have expanded and developed the business that David Axmark and Michael "Monty" Widenius started in the 90's.
Thanks to our business model, we have been able to hire more developers and make more code available under GPL. For instance, last year we acquired a highly advanced clustered database from Ericsson which we made available under GPL for the free and open source software (FOSS) communities in the world. Monty and David continue to be in the driving seat in these issues.
While being fully committed to FOSS and to GPL, we get more and more enterprise customers who want us to provide commercial licences and commercial services. They also want easy guidelines on open source licensing and when to do what.
In our attempt to make open source licensing easy to understand for enterprise customers who know little about the topic, we clearly have stated things that have upset those who know the licensing in detail. My apologies for this.
I hope you will have understanding with this, and that you will appreciate that we listen to you and make changes as we go. For instance, a misfortunate wording regarding "distribution" and more specifically "internal distribution" has now been removed from our licensing pages.
But more feedback is welcome, because open source licensing just is not easy to explain. If you have a better wording than we have come up with, please let us know.
It is interesting to debate licensing issues, and we do want to do it right. At the same time, we continue to experience that most practical situations are for the most part clear. FOSS projects and use of MySQL clearly falls under the GPL, and enterprise customers invariably want a commercial relationship with us. There undoubtedly is some gray zone, but it is not enormous, and we do all we can to sort it out.
I'd say that our FOSS Exception (which admittely took time to author) is a great example of removing gray zones and impossible situations. Some open source licences are by definition incompatible with each other, but with our FOSS Exception we have made sure that MySQL under GPL can live side by side with open source software of other licences.
There is much more to write on the subject, but I will stop for now. Feedback continues to be very much welcome - publicly or directly to me (I am sure you can guess my email address).
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
P.S. Sometimes I see comments about our VC financing and where that may lead us. Here is some info for the interested reader: We brought in some 13.5 million euros last year in venture funding. As of today, we have barely touched the money. We are growing fast, but we don't want to grow too fast and risk losing the unique culture of our company. Monty and David and the other founders continue to be the biggest owners in the company. And to be on the safe side, we have made sure through a shareholders agreement that all shareholders stay committed to our open source / free software philosophy. I would claim that MySQL AB could serve as an example of how open source and VC funding can work well together. And I hope the world will see a whole armada of successful open source businesses in the next years. The market is in need of disruptive technologies, and this community has them.
How about mixing in some evidence or facts in your rant?
How did this pile of shit get marked insightful too?
Well, for them to change the license, they must have the copyright on that code (or the consent of all those who do hold copyright on it).
From then on, they can license it however they please under any license they see fit.
However, what was GPL'd *stays* GPL'd, so you can restart a fork of it with all new developers if you so choose. Also, if you have many copyright holders (e.g. as with Linux), you effectively cannot change the license, because it would probably be impossible to get the consent of enough of the copyright holders.
IANAL, but I've spent a lot of time reading US copyright law and Groklaw.
I had thought about that, and the more I thought about it, the more it seemed like a bad idea. Why?
The bad habits people learned on MySQL would perpetuate. After all, why code for database abstraction if the two main OSS databases share the same API?
I'd much rather MySQL tightened things up a bit. Optionally of course as I understand they have a large installed base, but I'd like to see the MySQL version of Perl's "use strict". If MySQL did that, I hereby proclaim to all around me that I will no longer bash MySQL. I won't necessarily prefer it to PostgreSQL, Firebird, or SQLite, but I won't flat out trash talk it for being a loose piece of crap data trashcan that silently ignores obvious errors in the name of efficiency while blaming the programmer even though one of its primary selling points is that it's easy for beginners.
'The fuzzy elephant' is NOT a valid integer nor is it a valid timestamp nor is it appropriate for a varchar field constrained to 10 characters! NOT NULL means "I require a value," not "I'll put the non-specified default in there despite you passing a NULL." It's not like these checks require a great deal of processing power after all. If it made more than a blip on the speed of MySQL, I would be truly astonished.
Once MySQL's "use strict" is in there, I will accept the mantra that it's the programmer's fault for not using it.
- I don't need to go outside, my CRT tan'll do me just fine.
Aaarghh!!
for so clearly expressing everything that is wrong with PHP!
Those of us using real languages (whether perl, python, Java, or whatever) just need to change the datasource, and maybe tweak an SQL statement or two.
I think I'll run my DB App on Oracle today!
hmm...no, now I'll use DB2.....Ok, time to try MySQL, and how about we switch to PostgreSQL on Fridays...
Advanced users are users too!
It appears that the folks building MySQL are even MORE pro GPL than a rabid /.er! I know it's hard to believe, but unlike the very bad description of the artcle given above (the sky is falling, the sky is falling) the actual text of the article shows that the company is pro GPL. It isn't backing away from the liscence, but tryng to be sure that users of GPL software uphold that very lisence.
Whats interesting is that this affects open source, but not necessarily GPL projects. Asterisk which use a different lisence have removed MySQL libraries because of this conflict.
From their documentation:
"We were recently contacted by MySQL and informed that the MySQL client
libraries are now under GPL license and not LGPL license as before.
Since Asterisk does allow exceptions to GPL, we are removing MySQL support
from standard Asterisk. We will, where appropriate, make it available via
a separate package which will only be usable when Asterisk is used completely
within GPL (i.e. not in conjunction with G.729, OpenH.323, etc). We
apologize for the confusion.
Is this a case of the GPL being a bad thing?
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
It's human nature that once you get something for free, you don't want to pay for it. The amount of man-hours that must have gone into writing MySQL is huge though. Just because these guys now would like to try and make a little money out of their endeavours doesn't turn them into the Evil Empire overnight. Lighten up guys.
there is always PostgreSql, a great, free, open source RDBMS.
You are welcome to license your new versions or the same version under licenses other than the GPL, because the GPL is non-exclusive. You can re-license the original code to yourself, if you feel like getting that far into it, under any license you like. What you cannot do is revoke the GPL rights on copies already distributed.
True. However, mysql mas been doing something rather interesting lately. They dual-license mysq under their own license and a GPL-look-alike license. Why look-alike? Well, because it sure as heck not GPL. Let me elaborate.
Among other things what GPL boils down to is that you are allowed to use the product in any way you want as long as you do not modify it. If you do, you need to release the cahnges under GPL. That's not all of it, but that's the part that mysql "extended". In essense, they say that not only are you not allowed to make changes without releasing the source, but ou are not allowed to USE their GPLed software in non-GPL-licensed software. Unless, of course, you buy their commercial license, which they will try to sell you at any cost.
There's a big difference between MODIFYING and USING. Consider PHP, for example. PHP is a released under license incompatible with GPL. Yet it needs mysql as much as mysql needs php to be successful. So, PHP folks have to keep getting license exceptions, thanks to Zak Greant. It gets worse if you product relies on mysql, not merely uses it. A quick google search brought me here. There is a lot more to that, but you'd have to google on your own - somehow I am not searching for the right terms I guess. In essense, what mysql did is they said "Our software is licensed under GPL" and then turned around and said "But you can't use it as you'd use any GPL software, because we put extra restrictions in addition to GPL." Unfortunately, most people just hear the first message, develop their software so it relies on mysql and then - BOOM! - they find that "clarification" from mysql ab. Once you bite the hook and cannot go back, they can force you to get their commercial license. Either that, or release the entire source code for your whole product that relies on mysql, even if no changes whatsoever were made to mysql itself. Fun, eh?
I am not going to argue on the merits of whether they can actually say that they are licensing a piece of software under GPL, and then add a "clarification" to that. I would be very surprised if such a thing would ever stand up in court, but I am most certainly not a lawyer, and neither do I have much faith in the judicial system. Even if it were to fail in court, the costs of acquiring a few commercial licenses are dwarfed by even the most modest court expenses, so for most people it's a no-brainer - just go and get the license. And for mysql it's the source of revenue through extortion.
You may believe that you can use mysql in a non-GPL product, and you are fine because you comply with the REAL GPL, not the mysql's version of GPL. Maybe you even have the money to fight that claim in court and prevail. That's fine. THe thing that matters most though is that even if you are not vilating the LETTER of the law, you are still violating the SPIRIT of the license, as mysql AB has stated so clearly in their "clarification". That fact alone makes me shiver and think again about what kind of company mysql ab is, and whether it would be prudent for me to recommend their software to my clients, whether they are interested in a commercial license, or intend to use mysql in a GPL-compliant way.
These are merely my opinions based on a fair amount of research I had to make on the subject. Not a legal advice by any means. Please, feel free to disagree with me and hire a lawyer if you need to.
Jobs? Which jobs?
ok the topic here should be mysql vs postgres but seeing as how it has been trolled to death I though I would add my .02 and a question.
I've been reviewing and making infrastructure architecture recommendations for > 6 years. My experience has been that the people who can demonstrate scale and efficiency tend to choose systems that do not bottleneck the database. I have used mysql, postgres, as well as oracle. Generally people say that mysql is limited in features, but is that a bad thing? When you have a "large system" and outgrow a 24 processor sun or IBM box you start to consider things like multiple database servers, moving cpu load onto the commodity hardware in the application layer, and data partitioning. DR for large system and the cost a site failure and full restore for such a large system are also valid concern. Most sites with the characteristics of a "large system" are Financial, Telco, Data Warehousing, and batch processing fit an Oracle, or DB2 profile very well. Generally internet sites that don't grow so big (>200GB data), or get Tons(>20Mb/s) traffic tend to do fairly well with anything, even M$ SQL.
Can someone with the deep experience (in both systems), and some spare time, please create a feature/fault matrix for both production and development versions of mysql and posgres and submit the link as a reply? It wouldn't hurt to throw in oracle/DB2 to see what repaying for your software every year gets you.
Nothing new here.
Well you're right about that, the GPL hasn't changed. It has always taken away the ability of original developers to make money from developing original software, forcing them to either make money by offering support or by flipping burgers during the day to fund their open source coding at night. Nothing new there, it has always slanted the playing field away from original developers and in favour of redevelopers.
What's new however is that PHBs have now discovered open source, and so companies that previously employed talented original programmers to develop new inhouse products from scratch now realize that they can hire fewer people than before because there is so much great code out there available for free. Furthermore, the quality of the people they hire can be lower because they only need to be relatively inexperienced redevelopers instead of original designers. All of this translates into paying less money for development. They love it.
Meanwhile, professional developers are getting screwed left, right and center, their earning potential and careers going right down the pan. After all, code hackers for redevelopment are two-a-penny, and there is little extra benefit from hiring a highly educated and experienced professional when all that an inhouse project needs is some existing open sources to be hacked around a little.
And it gets worse. Small software businesses used to be very common, able to survive the hardships of birth and early growth because software development scaled very well, ie. a small group of developers could create a novel product and sell a huge number of copies, with near-zero incremental cost per copy sold. In contrast, making money from support doesn't scale, because support requires people-time to handle every additional customer needing support, and those people require salaries --- the incremental cost is very high unless you're outsourcing support overseas. It's pretty much impossible to launch a professional software business from your garage in these circumstances, unless you abandon open source.
The sad thing is that those professionals were the grassroots developers who helped open source spread in the first place, but who now find themselves shafted by it. It's not surprising that some are changing their views now, when faced with mounting bills and no income.
I shouldn't be judging a book by its cover, but if the website, is any indication, MySQL's direction re commercialism is somewhat painfully obvious. The layout to me suggests the kind of tacky, soulless "content" mentality I'd expect to see on macromedia.com or real.com, not the site of an open source project. I was also unable to locate a reference to the GPL licensed form of MySQL, whereas an advertisement of the "Pro" version was instantly apparent.
they result in vendor lock-in, which is particularly bad if you're trying to write code independent of the RDBMS engine.
a very bad design decision all around.
Thirdly, if the developers have accepted contributions from GPL folks without also getting ownership of the copyrights to the contributed code, then they probably are not allowed to take the current code based and make a version of it with any license that's more restrictive than the GPL, since the only license they have to the other people's code is the GPL itself, which forbids adding restrictions.
Many also accept contributions under a dual licence, without assigning copyright. That is in most cases preferable, as people rarely like to give up copyright to their own work.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
...if you already have the code base, which is mainly developed in-house. Simply require all contributions to be under dual licence/copyright waiver. Certainly, you're free to create your own GPL fork, but then you're on your own.
It is not considerably different from most other projects. If you don't like the rules of contributing, fork your own. That e.g. the kernel is GPL, doesn't mean I have any right to get my code in Linus' code tree.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
When MySQL AB speaks "Commercial" they really mean proprietary.
This confusion is being laid down on MySQL AB themselves for not following wise advice from the FSF.
So put aside MySQL AB's stubborn remarks and read this:
Of course you can make a Commercial program linked with the GNU GPL. You can make Free Software and charge for 1st sale copies. What you can't is turn a GPL'ed software into a non-GPL'ed program.
But you can still make lots of businesses with it!
Come to think of it, many don't follow FSF's advices and call them fanatics or worse things. The funny thing is, they never force nothing upon you, they simply advise you, give you an example, and criticize you when you go "yay proprietary".
Maybe you should read more of what's on their site instead of relying on what your friend or idol says.
I've always wondered abotu that myself. When people talk about the GPL they only talk about releasing changes if you actually plan to distribute it, whereas the License itself seems to imply that you should always make your changes/code available. (Although I'd be the first to admit that Licenses always confuse the heck out of me)
If I've got what you're saying right, then is Company X likes a GPL project and modifies it for internal use then they can do it without breaking the GPL as long as the source code is at least available in-house. So anyone who actually uses the software (Company X's staff) does have access to the source.
And if I'm way off-base then I'm pretty sure that I'm not the only one who is missing the point.
I have to admit that when it comes to things like this I'm kinda glad I suck at coding. Licenses are always written in "Legal", which is great for making them stick in court but useless for people like me who only understand "normal" English despite its ambiguities.
So if i were any good at coding I'd still never get anything done as I'd not understand the damn licenses well enough to ever risk releasing anything.
Tiggs
"120 chars should be enough for everyone..."
I haven't RTFA yet, but I heard Brian Aker, MySQL's Director of Architecture speak at a local LUG meeting last weekend, and he sure didn't seem to think the company was backing away from the GPL. Quite the opposite. They're getting ready to release some really nice-looking new GUI admin tools, which will be GPL'd. He said (paraphrase), "If you're open source, we're open source, and we'll help you however we can. But if you're using our product in a closed-source way, we have no problem charging you for a commercial license." As I understand it, that's the way they've always been.
I know what I'm talking about.
e d patches [FSF-style or MySQL-style]) -- then he can do whatever he wants with the code, BECAUSE IT's its property. But if he accepted a lot of outside patches, whithout copyright weavers (linux-the-kernel style) he would need the authorization of the patch owners OR he would need to reverse all outside patches (if possible -- in the case of linux, for instance, this is not really practical), or else he would be bound by the GPL because the current work is a derivative work on the GPL'd patches.
1. are the old versions still under GPL?
A. yes.
2. is the new code still bound by the GPL?
A. this depends on who is the copyright owner of the last GPL'd version. if the original copyright owner (the original package owner) is the SOLE copyright owner of the last GPL'd version (as in: he did not accept any outside patches, or if he accepted only copyright-releasing-by-writing-signed-and-notariz
3. how close is too close?
A. to be completely untainted, he would have to write down the complete spec to the work (in English, for example) and would have to get another person -- who had not seen the source code previously -- to re-write it in some programming language. this is what is called clean-room reimplementation.
HTH,
Massa
It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
Its the same deal and its fair. If you make money from a custom client, you have to send some back to mysqlab.
When reading the MySQL website, they seem to have taken liberties with definitions in the GPL agreement. In fact, they have interpretted the GPL as meaning 'trial version'
If you read their license faq you will see what I mean.
You need a commercial license if you:
Download this
Copy it
Give it to someone else
Install it
Install it on another machine
Give it to someone to install it... etc etc
I noticed that there are some grey areas of GPL, and what does it cover? It is freely licensable?
I wish someone would write a case (using MySQL) giving examples of what you could do, and what you cannot do.
GPL is probably the most misunderstood (except for LGPL!!) license in the world!
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
Windows 2003 web server is quite reasonably priced, SQL Server Express seems like it's going to be free and ASP.Net is streets ahead of ASP (or indeed PHP).
In response, MySQL is getting fussy about licensing and PHP has tunneled out of the Apache Foundation and run blinking into the Sun.
Did I put my head on backwards this morning?
Most people|developers out there live quite happy ignoring the new license of the DB..
there are a lot of Paid4[Mails|Views|Shit] programs out there, where the developer dont care of the license: ">400Euros for a license? i am not going to pay this". tell them to give them their code according to the GPL and the laugh at you.
So its up to MySQL AB to
a) ignore that and make their license politics ridiculous and perhaps sue one of the big offenders
b) try to enforce their license and sue some of the users. this will certainly reduce the user base to zero almost instantly.
b) will probably never happen.
Site is slashdotted. Here is the obligatory Google cache link. Heffel
Expert Java EE Consulting
being GPL'd, one could just take the "good stuff" from mysql and make a new project that isn't completely a fork, or just put that stuff into a different DB app. So long as they just give credit, blah etc...
First of all MySQL used to be the only choice for OSS developers when it comes to stable database software that could be used in a productive environment with a lot of demand. PostgreSQL used to be more damanding on hardware and hardware (as noone should forget) used to be much slower. Now we have 2 and 3 Ghz for 200 bucks. PostgreSQL also became more stable, robust and less demanding. There are also many new choices out there: MaxDB (formerly known as SAP-DB e.g. Adabas D) is now under the GPL and Interbase became OSS under the name Firebird to name just 2 very famous examples.
So if anyone has problems with the license for any reason they can choose among many other: BSD for PostgreSQL, GPL for MaxDB and the InterBase Public License for Firebird for the three mentioned examples.
Other than that all code released under the GPL can be used under the terms of the GPL and anyone can do whatever they feel like with it. That means that if I choose to take the current MySQL to write my world domination program (the source code to that would certainly remain secret) with it I can do it now or whenever I choose to do that.
Only when I want to distribute said program (what a dumb idea!) I have to make the source code available to anyone who I distribute this program to and I also have to inform that person that they can do anything they want with that code as long as they adhere to the GPL.
The LGPL is a different beast. If I link my program to LGPL libs I can withhold the source even if I choose to distribute my program. If I link to GPL libs I have to give out the source with the program. Only if I use code LGPL itself I need to put the result under the LGPL. But agains only if I distribute it. Many companies used to develope software only for in house purposes. Those could and still can use GPL and LGPL programs and source as much as they like and don't have to give anything back to the community.
There is absolutely no problem here, because anyone can still use existing code with the licenses they were distributed under, e.g. older or the current version of the MySQL client and even fork and patch those with appropriate security patches if necessary (the patches have to be the old license though). So if anyone created a program using the old MySQL then they don't have a problem. If they develope something new then they can choose among many OSS DB (s.a.) and their respective licenses.
So nothing to see here, move along please.
I ran out of points but this is the clearest explaination I've read so far on the topic. Thanks.
# fuser -v
#
Now that Postgres 8.0 has hit beta and this one is the first version which supports windows natively, I think if MySQL does stupid tricks people have switched to PostgresSQL faster as the can say GP(L). In the long run people will switch anyway since Postgres is more mature, has more features and is rock stable also the momentum of opensource database development switches slowly to postgres with Fujitsu as one of the major supporters of the project. The only thing which has held postgres back in the past seriously was the lack of a decent windows implementation (which is necessary to gather the masses) this limit now is solved. MySQL has a serious problem on its hands.
I just got all cozy with PhP/MySQL now I got to go out and learn PGrease
It shouldn't take a masters degree to know that the Gotcha's [insert link everyone has seen before here] mysql has are pretty disturbing. But maybe your not really a DBA? I mean, most shops that use mysql, SQL Server and the like don't have fulltime DBA's.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
Watching people use mysql is like watching other people play video games. ie. If your watching someone play a video game and they aren't as good as your or absolutely pathetic, it can drive a person bonkers. I guess thats what postgresql users see when they see mysql users... people who don't know what they are doing or don't know any better.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that postgresql is a better product, just look at the Gotcha's for Mysql and compare it to the gotcha's for postresql.
You can base you opinion of postgresql users on whatever criteria you want, but the people who know this stuff have already formed an opinion about you and its based on real criteria such as the above.
The funny thing is, you don't even know what postgres can do. Did you even evaluate your options before you started developing or did you just jump on the mysql train?
Call me a fanboy if you want but at least I can say I evaluated both systems.
"Thanks to the remote control I have the attention span of a gerbil."
At the heart of this issue is one of trust - is the community of software developers and users willing to trust MySQL AB and its leadership? As a sometime member of both communities, I will say that, considering the long- and out-standing contributions that the company has made, my answer is yes.
imagine that an individual wishes not to be bound by the viral limitations of GPL. The owner of the copyright may provide that individual with a traditional commercial license, and the individual may then create proprietary code thereunder.
This does, in the FSF-sense, make the software less "free," in that the proprietary code made by the commercial licensee is not GPL'd. On the other hand, everybody else may continue to relate to the "rest of" the GPL code in the "old-fashioned" open source way.
I use MySQL to store a lot of meta-data about files on my computers. It's really a very useful tool to have and I'd like to see something like it made standard as a virtual filesytem.
With Microsoft's and Apple's push for db-driven filesystems has MySQL considered doing anything in this area? It'd seem to me that MySQL has a strong position to become a cross-platform defacto standard for this type of thing.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Thank you - I missed the earlier discussion.
:(.
I think we are both agreed - use the right tool for the job.
Oh, and yes, it was a typo. That day, my eyeballs were not up to the task of spell-checking acronyms
One more point of interest:
The project in question was very small and had low performance requirements. Nothing of import was lost by using a "lowest common denominator" of functionality. At the same time, *in this particular case*, there's a Big Win for others who are likely to use use this tool in the future but who might not use the same DBMS I'm using. It was pretty obvious early on that ODBC was "the right tool for the job." Had the job had different requirements, I might've picked a particular DBMS to code to.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Personally I think Urlocker was simply trying to point out that the the spirit of the GPL isn't about exploiting a company/developer because they release their software for free. Personally, I support GPL companies who make commercial software available. This includes both Redhat & MySQL. These companies have done the right thing by us ('us' being those who believe in the GPL) and consequently I'll gladly repay them. My philosophy on purchasing software which is otherwise released under GPL is "If you can afford it, pay for it". At least then the company who releases the software can continue working on further releases. Maybe it's just me, but I get a warm fuzzy feeling when I pay a developer for his piece of OSS/GPL software. It's like saying "You've done a brilliant job, have a beer!". Just my 2c.
LOL :D