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."
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.
Consistency in a database is important too, whatever they choose I'll stick with Postgresql.
Nothing to be concerned about here, folks. Move along. Move along.
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!
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.
TheirSQL
*snicker snicker*
The classic "farewell and fork you!"
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
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.
I'll give you my reading, because the other followup didn't catch all your questions:
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. 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.
Anyone else have a better grasp of the issues?
YLFIOne god, one market, one truth, one consumer.
This is actually an unfortunate misconception about the GPL. By releasing code under the GPL, you are by no means giving up your ownership over the copyright under that code. As the owner of the copyright, you're welcome to do anything you want with it, including licensing it under any other license you see fit, and MySQL does just this. They offer MySQL under two separate licenses, one GPL, one not, and you can pick which one you want to use.
I think the change from the LGPL to the GPL was designed precisely for the purpose of forcing more people to purchase commericial licenses. Unless I'm misunderstanding the situation, under the LPGL, you can link your (propriety) code against their libraries without having to distribute your source code. Under the GPL, this is not the case - linking is not "mere aggregation" and you now have to distribute the source, cough up $$$, or stop upgrading MySQL. If they were distributing the code ONLY under xGPL, the change would clearly be an endorsement of F/OSS, but because of the dual license, it seems more like an attempt to restrict what users can do with their software.
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.
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.