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."
Consistency in licensing is important, whatever they choose I hope they stick with it.
I disagree. I think that they're using legalese to try and mask that they're moving away from true F/OSS. It's been happening for a while now.
Disconnect and self-destruct, one bullet at a time.
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.
People will switch to PostgreSQL faster than the MySQL folks can type GPL back into the license. They will be crazy.
If they change the license, can't we just fork from the last GPL release?
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!
We'll start seeing more PostGre projects when more webhosts start offering it with their services. But we won't see that until there's more demand for it. Etc, etc.
Plus the fact that for 98% of all websites, either option is equally acceptable, are really going to inhibit development of PostGre vs MySQL.
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!
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...
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
Where this gets dicey, though, is if MySQL contains any code which is owned by someone else. For example, if I make an improvement to MySQL, and they incorporate it into a newer version, they could not release it under any license other than the GPL without my approval, unless they were to remove my code. Strange quirks like this are one of the reasons why the FSF asks people to give the copyright of code over to them rather than to have all of the individual programmers retain copyright.
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.
I'm not sure what I've misconceived here.
A project released under the GPL stays under the GPL. No retroactive licensing may be applied to the code. This does not prevent me (the author/copyright owner) from re-licensing the code under any other license that I deem useful.
In the situation that I released under GPL and then took the code back immediately before anyone had a chance to gain access to it, my GPL'ing of the code is essentially moot. It would be as if I had never released the code under the GPL.
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
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.
i'd rather everyone stop coding strictly towards one database api, and use abstracted interfaces like PEAR, ado.net, jdbc, odbc, etc.
- tristan
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
IANAL, but...
Firstly, certainly all previous versions of the software licensed under the GPL can continue to be used under the GPL.
Secondly, if the copyrights to the software are all solely owned by one company or by a small group of people then they can re-release the software under as many different licensing schemes as they want. They own the copyrights to the code, so they could decide to make all future versions of the code closed-source, or whatever. Anyone in the free software community would be free to create a "forked" version of the software based on the last GPL version and continue to develop it independently and release it under the GPL.
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.
Finally, this is all a red herring in this particular case because the MySQL folks are just publishing their take on what the GPL means on their web site - they're not actually adding any restrictions. Of course, any company that sells software for a living will bias the explanations of the GPL on their web site as far as they can towards making you think that you have to buy their software, but the real license is still the GPL, and their "interpretation" of the GPL holds little or no legal standing.
"To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
There's not actually any concept of 'internal use' in the GPL, you know... there's no line to be crossed. The requirement is simply that those who receive the binary from the distributor are entitled to the corresponding source.
As far as leaked binaries are concerned, good luck. As far as the developing company or individual is concerned, they haven't released binaries, so they've no obligation to release sources either.
And I doubt any court would see binaries obtained illegitimately as forcing the release of source - you might well find yourself under attack for breach of copyright by possessing them.
This parallel licensing, where projects are released under the GPL and then sublicensed to private entities under non free licenses in exchange for bling is probably ( imho ) the best way to make money on a free software project.
Horse-puckey...
It's a conflict of interest that consistently leads to abuses.
In the present case MySQL is pretending that GPL software is basicly non-commercial use only. It's a straight out lie, no matter how they dance around the issue. The Free Software Foundation is being very kind in stating that MySQL "marketing literature" isn't their concern.
MySQL AB isn't alone though.... Trolltech advances the idea that software you create using the GPL version of QT can't be reused in a commercial product. Their wording is careful, but the idea is wrong. You own the code you write, regardless of what libraries you used. Remove those libraries and you can do whatever you want. Their dual-licensing has also resulted in Linux PDAs which can't be synced to Linux desktops. Way to go...
PHP-Nuke has tried to pretend that various bits of code and advertising constitute a license declaration under the GPL. Basicly, GPL == adware. It's nonsense. Moreover, the PHP-Nuke advertising makes no mention that PHP-Nuke is itself a fork of Thatware.
ReiserFS, like PHPNuke wants to pretend that GPL software is adware for commercial products. Hans flipped out when Debian trimmed the marketing spiel out of mkfs.reiserfs. It's obviously not the intent of the license text clause of the GPL to advertise the benefits of non-free versions of GPL software.
Dual licensing is a bad idea. The only way you sell the commercial version is to make the GPL version unfriendly to business. Since the GPL was intended as a business friendly license, you're forced to misrepresent the GPL to sell licenses. If you want a dual-licensing business, don't use the GPL as the free license. Pick something that lets everyone know, from the get-go, that you're a commercial house intent on selling commercial software.
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.
I remember a few years ago, a total nOOb, trying to figure out what's what in the database world. I had read about how we don't really need all those complex features that slow down databases, and believed it.
Then I worked for a company that required Oracle for its database, because nothing else on the market could possibly handle what they needed done. And they put me to work on some of their stored procedures. ouch.
I learned what I needed about database normalization, and I realized just how much of a toy MySQL was.
That they added essential features is great, but that they still think they're unnecessary shows they have NO CLUE what challenges you get in big developments. And if they flip-flopped on the features, will they change the license?
The most promising db right now for people like me is obviously PostgreSQL. No license hassles is just gravy.
Information: "I want to be anthropomorphized"
The counterpoint to that, though, is that the employee is working as an agent of the company, not as an agent of themselves. If they have been disallowed, as an agent of the company, from distributing the software outside the company, then the company has not "distributed" the software.
/.), but I'd imagine that would be the most likely counterpoint.
Not that I'm a lawyer, or even have an iota of a clue about this subject (hey, this is
Information wants to be free.
Entertainment wants to be paid.
You just want to be cheap.
All the more reason to use FirebirdSQL or PostgreSQL
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Isn't FSF's asking people to give them the copyright just the same as MySQL does, the only difference being thar MySQL is a commercial entity?
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.