Oracle Acquires Sleepycat

May I be the first to say... by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-14 13:39 · Score: 4, Funny

God Damnit

Re:May I be the first to say... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 13:43 · Score: 1, Funny

May I be the first to say - I second that!
Re:May I be the first to say... by arivanov · 2006-02-14 19:59 · Score: 1

The best way to beat competition is to buy it. Capitalism at work.

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:May I be the first to say... by nobodaddy · 2006-02-15 11:30 · Score: 1

Nope. Bzzzt. Wrong.
Oracle's DB codebase, all 40,000 source files, is a steaming heap of wazoolah.
They're getting out of being a DB vendor and getting into services, a la IBM.
Hence peoplesoft etc.
Expect Oracle next to start sniffing after J2EE/EJB tool vendors, and various CRM vendors and so forth. Expect Oracle to start selling vertically-integrated stacks of varying sizes that work with all sorts of DB engines.
The real reason O bought SC was so they could lean on the technology to deliver services without worrying about e.g. MS pulling the rug out from under them.
Re:May I be the first to say... by MadAhab · 2006-02-15 15:23 · Score: 1

You may have been the first to say it, you may not be the last, but you sure are right. Oracle must become a services company if they are to stay "in the game". And that means being able to deliver solutions targeted more precisely to more markets - it means having an in-house toolkit that runs small and fast, among other things. And Berkeley DB fits that niche. Now as a fan of Berkeley db stuff, my only hope is that they basically fund the key developers as an in-house department supporting an OSS. And actually it's in their best interests to do so; look at SleepyCat's big enterprise customers and I don't expect much to change regarding the OSS software available; SleepyCat has already made a good niche between a machine-local OSS engine and multi-machine transactional-safe hoohaa. If you can do with the former, you aren't worth squeezing as a customer; if you need the latter, you like the wide acceptance and stability of the former and will happily pay for the extra "enterprise" features or licensing of the OSS code. And that is why Oracle bought them - OSS with customers, plus proven low-overhead, high-performance technology that can get Oracle-branded software into, say, a TV-top DVR, or an iPod-type device (hey, what kind of DBs actually back iPods?). So, yes, vertically-integrated stacks, and their own codebase being "wazoolah", it's nice to have Berkeley DB to fill the "small overhead, tiny-to-enormous dataset, bare-metal programming" slot in their toolkit. On first look, this is a victory for proving the potential financial viability of OSS approaches. And against a giant like Oracle, that means something.

--
Expanding a vast wasteland since 1996.

Interesting .... by joe_n_bloe · 2006-02-14 13:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

.. o O o ..

Can Oracle's acquisitions be predicted based upon the database backends used with MySQL? What other backends work with MySQL?

Re:Interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:25 · Score: 0

Microsoft Access! 0_o
Re:Interesting .... by menkhaura · 2006-02-14 14:36 · Score: 1

How evil would Microsoft be if Oracle acquired Microsoft? IOW, how evil Oracle is?

--
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog
Re:Interesting .... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 15:01 · Score: 1

At present there are more than twenty storage engines for MySQL, though most aren't distributed by MySQL itself. Quite a few significant users of MySQL have their own engines for special purposes as well.
Re:Interesting .... by jadavis · 2006-02-14 15:48 · Score: 5, Informative

How many of those engines are distributed under a free license and have transactional support? Looks like both are owned by Oracle now. Oracle did that for a reason, and it's not because they like to collect database companies.

Many users of MySQL depend on one or more of:
(1) the ability to license MySQL commercially with one of those engines cheaply
(2) the continued development of those storage engines
(3) the continued development of MySQL

Oracle can now stronly influence all of those things. #1 they can just raise the price or not license. #2 they can just lay off all the developers. Good luck getting an open sources devel team together before it's too late. #3, they can just refuse to license those backends, thereby preventing #1, which is also MySQL's source of revenue, leading indirectly to exactly the same case as #2.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-14 16:55 · Score: 1, Insightful

Indeed, it's this very sort of thing that is the reason that developers like myself rail against the GPL as a license for any software that companies would reasonably need to integrate with their own systems in order to use it effectively. It's the reason that the GPL needs serious rethought about the definition of deployment in ways that make it easier, not harder, for a business to make changes that they need for their own internal use without releasing the source code to the general public.
Even more scary is this: the license exception for linking MySQL's libraries with non-GPL open source software lists specific versions of those licenses. If Oracle ever managed to buy MySQL AB, MySQL itself could even become unusable with future versions of PHP unless they never update their license. Now -that- is scary.
The GPL needs to be fixed. The zealotry needs to be put aside and people need to realize that internal corporate use of software should trump so-called "freedom", so long as the modified versions of the software are not distributed outside an organization/corporation and its partners. The GPL needs to make it clear that it does not ever restrict users of software, only public distribution thereof. Otherwise, these problems will keep popping up (and getting worse).
The GPL also needs to be fixed to explicitly allow linking with software licensed under any OSI-approved open source software license, without regard to any conflicting licensing terms. I actually brought up the flip side of this issue (modifying other licenses to play better with the GPL) in an email to RMS back in the late 90s, and I seem to recall suggesting even at that time that running into linking problems between open source software over licensing terms was really rather silly. I'm somewhat surprised that even after all these years, the GPL is still such an utter pain in the ass to deal with unless you only write GPL software....
But for now, we have to deal with the situation as it is. Specifically, we need to find a viable BSD-licensed (or at least LGPL-licensed) back end for MySQL. If we don't get one, MySQL adoption could very well suffer greatly in the business world.
Oh, well. There's always Postgres (and, to a lesser degree, Ingres, as long as Oracle doesn't buy them out).

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 17:08 · Score: 1

The chance of the GPL changing from a walled garden which blocks non-Borg compatibility with almost all open source licenses seems minimal, unfortunately.

However, for internal corporate use this is irrelevant. You already can use GPL software freely within a corporation since that doesn't count as distribution. The FSF FAQ make the view of the FSF on this clear:

'Is making and using multiple copies within one organization or company "distribution"?

No, in that case the organization is just making the copies for itself. As a consequence, a company or other organization can develop a modified version and install that version through its own facilities, without giving the staff permission to release that modified version to outsiders. However, when the organization transfers copies to other organizations or individuals, that is distribution. In particular, providing copies to contractors for use off-site is distribution.'
Re:Interesting .... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 17:14 · Score: 1

Sorry, I wasn't the person who compiled that list and I don't know their licensing. Oracle only owns two of those copyrights.

I expect that many commercial distributors can still license the MySQL client libraries and use the GPL version of MySQL.

As far as too late goes, judging from the InnoDB reports, it's safe to expect that MySQL's contracts have a minimum of a year from notice of termination to end of ability to license. That's enough time to get some alternative in place. For InnoDB MySQL also said that all existing customers could continue indefinitely, if I recall correctly, suggesting that there's a grandfather clause in there for existing customers as well.
Re:Interesting .... by sick_soul · 2006-02-14 17:51 · Score: 1

> The GPL needs to be fixed. The zealotry needs to be put aside and people need to realize
> that internal corporate use of software should trump so-called "freedom", so long as the
> modified versions of the software are not distributed outside an organization/corporation
> and its partners. The GPL needs to make it clear that it does not ever restrict users of
> software, only public distribution thereof. Otherwise, these problems will keep popping up
> (and getting worse).

Sorry to point it out, but even with your very low ID you have not the faintest idea about what the GPL is.

I have good news for you: you can use the GPL software internally as much as you want.
If you do not redistribute the code, you have nothing to worry about.
Re:Interesting .... by Tony+Hoyle · 2006-02-14 19:10 · Score: 1

Not according to mysql.

If you read their site you 'redistribute' if you give your software to someone else and they download it to use with your software. Even though you never touched GPL software you are in breach of the mysql license. This is why many companies are ditching mysql and moving to alternatives.

Oh and don't start with the 'companies should buy a license' crap - at $500 *per client* it's considerably more expensive than pretty much all the alternatives, except maybe oracle (and maybe not even then).
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-14 19:50 · Score: 2, Insightful

Name one computer company that doesn't have any off-site contractors. As soon as you're talking about corporate internal apps, requiring them to be public open source apps in order to be allowed to use them within your company (off-site contractors included) or within companies that you work with closely (e.g. part suppliers for a manufacturing firm), the use of GPLed software becomes a show-stopper. (Bear in mind that none of such software would ever be useful outside the organization in question, but could reveal internal processes in a way that could cause harm to the organization.)
Also, remember that what you're talking about is only the FSF's legal opinion on the subject. While this can be construed as being effectively part of the license for software copyrighted by the FSF, it is not binding upon any other GPL software author, which means that for any corporate environment to embrace GPL software directly is a scary thing, requiring legal departments to contact the authors of each individual GPL program and ask them to confirm that their interpretation of the license coincides with the interpretation presented by the FSF.. About the only way I would ever touch MySQL in a corporate environment without a commercial license would be through a layer of indirection like PHP or Perl (whose licenses are dramatically more palatable for corporate use).
The bottom line is, if it isn't in black and white in the license, a legal opinion from the FSF isn't worth the paper it is written on... and even if it were, their opinion is still too restrictive to be practical for most in-house corporate use in a company with over about a hundred employees, where contractors do work at home or off-site at vendors, where vendor relationships do require sharing of internal tools, and where any limitation on internal or partner distribution will require either buying a commercial license with non-GPL terms or simply being unable to use the GPL software at all.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 19:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

MySQL's view is that within a company is not distribution and no license is needed for GPL software. For software linked with a GPL library to connect to the server its view is also that within a company no license is needed. For redistributing outside when linked with a GPL library, its view is that you can use GPL or lots of open source licenses and still pay nothing at all. And if you don't want to be open source, its view is that that's OK also but it's going to charge you money so you contribute to open source in that way instead. And that helps to pay the wages of the few hundred people working for the company who are helping to improve MySQL for your benefit and that of everyone else.
Re:Interesting .... by HiThere · 2006-02-14 21:09 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unh.... The problem exists because those programs *weren't* under the GPL.

Now I suppose that it's true that you can equally fork the open code of a BSD project, but it won't necessarily all be open.

OTOH, it's also true that if MySQL were involved with the SleepyCat code, it wouldn't take them long to issue a new edition...provided that the licenses allowed this, as I'm pretty sure they do. (I don't know. I'm not lawyer, and I've always though of SleepyCat as proprietary, with all the dangers that that implied. I've also thought of it as OpenSource, in distinction to, e.g., Faircom's CTree.)

Maintaining the back-end to the database would be more work, but there doesn't appear to be anything inherently impossible about it. And until you do get it working, you can continue to use the present version.

InnoDB may be much more problematical....but isn't MaxDB a totally separate product that is equivalent to MySQLDB, but with built-in B+Tree? (This *is* a serious question, as I've only been peripherally following this issue...but I thought that I had heard that it wasn't really anything serious.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Interesting .... by xiphoris · 2006-02-14 21:23 · Score: 1

#2 they can just lay off all the developers.

At which point all the original developers reform the original company, grab the original source (the last release is still out there with its OSS license!), and start releasing the same product. Only now they're a lot richer with Oracle's money in their pockets.

No, I don't think Oracle will be firing them any time soon.
Re:Interesting .... by killjoe · 2006-02-14 21:53 · Score: 2, Informative

In order for the GPL to kick in two things have to happen.

1) You have to modify the code.
2) You have to distribute the code.

How many corporations have interest in modifying the code of berkleydb or innodb? Unless you make databases for a living I don't see why any corporation would even want to look at the code.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Interesting .... by Trepalium · 2006-02-14 22:11 · Score: 2, Informative

Where did you get this $500/client figure? They certainly charge $600/server. There are plenty of things to criticise MySQL over without making stuff up.

--
I used up all my sick days, so I'm calling in dead.
Re:Interesting .... by Alioth · 2006-02-14 23:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

The _whole point_ of the GPL is to have conditions on the very things you say should be removed. The GPL doesn't need to be changed - if you don't like the conditions of the GPL, use BSD (or other) licensed software. MySQL chose the GPL for a reason - if they wanted a license with the features that you list they would have used a license like that; but they did not.

If you don't want a GPL'd database, use PostgreSQL.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 00:23 · Score: 0

Or Apache Derby--managers may be more easily convinced if the payed support option is coming from a company like IBM.
Re:Interesting .... by jbolden · 2006-02-15 01:22 · Score: 1

Indeed, it's this very sort of thing that is the reason that developers like myself rail against the GPL as a license for any software that companies would reasonably need to integrate with their own systems in order to use it effectively. It's the reason that the GPL needs serious rethought about the definition of deployment in ways that make it easier, not harder, for a business to make changes that they need for their own internal use without releasing the source code to the general public.

The purpose of the GPL is to build a free software community. How does companies to commercial redistribute modified versions of open source applications to other companies without releasing source advance the creation of a free software community? Getting people to use modified versions of open source apps is the purpose of the MIT/BSD license. You are railing against the GPL for failing to do something it was specificially designed to prevent.

The GPL also needs to be fixed to explicitly allow linking with software licensed under any OSI-approved open source software license, without regard to any conflicting licensing terms.

OK I'm going to do the following link.

A is a GPLed ap
B is a BSD licensed patch program
C is commercial licensed patch code

Its legal to Link A and B and legal to link B and C. Thus I've created a patched version of A with changes which are owned by me. Now I compile....
Re:Interesting .... by leuk_he · 2006-02-15 01:40 · Score: 1

Oracle did that for a reason, and it's not because they like to collect database companies.

For big compagnies that now use oracle that is a good enough reason to stay using the expense oracle database (or the recent free XE edition. Switching to one of the free db backaneds (inno/libdb) does not change the dependabilty on oracle so why would one change for that reason?

Your reason are still valid for mysql user, but for oracle users it is good to stay at oracle in the long run since oracle seems to collect all of the free alternatives.
Re:Interesting .... by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:10 · Score: 1

The GPL needs to be fixed. The zealotry needs to be put aside and people need to realize that internal corporate use of software should trump so-called "freedom", so long as the modified versions of the software are not distributed outside an organization/corporation and its partners. First of all, why? Why is it in the best interest of GPL Developers to make their work easier to use in ways they don't want it used? That's like saying Microsoft needs to make it easier for people to use their OSs on more then one PC at a time. Why the hell do I want to make it easier for people to modify my code without giving anything back? That doesn't do me any good. Secondly, what about the GPL makes it not possible for companies to distribute software to employees without giving them the source? Other then overly-paranoid lawyers, that is.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Re:Interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 03:24 · Score: 0

Quite right. I too demand to pay less.

MySQL you must work for less money! My business is not profitable and you must suffer accordingly!
Re:Interesting .... by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:31 · Score: 1

Ok, or they could keep them employed, and instruct them to develop the software in a way that slowly kills the product.

Your plan works in theory, but in reality they lose all the marketing steam they had before. Oracle would be able to string the commercial companies along for a while with MySQL or some Oracle offering, leading to slow adoption from the new company. The userbase would be fractured, disorganized, and incompatible for years.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Interesting .... by Deven · 2006-02-15 06:16 · Score: 1

At which point all the original developers reform the original company, grab the original source (the last release is still out there with its OSS license!), and start releasing the same product. Only now they're a lot richer with Oracle's money in their pockets.

Except that the new company would lack the copyrights that gave Sleepycat the ability to dual-license the code for commercial use. Without that business model, a "new Sleepycat" could not survive. If Oracle lays off the developers, they could work on the code, but they would no longer be able to make a living at it...

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:Interesting .... by HiThere · 2006-02-15 06:22 · Score: 1

Sorry. I feel I was overrated here.

On thinking it over the post I was replying to was talking about the difficulties of writing proprietary commercial software. Given that this was his intent, I can understand why he doesn't like the GPL license on code he would need to use. (This doesn't mean I think we should adapt the license to suit his needs, but it does mean that my response was off the point.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Re:Interesting .... by Not+The+Real+Me · 2006-02-15 08:22 · Score: 1

"InnoDB may be much more problematical....but isn't MaxDB a totally separate product that is equivalent to MySQLDB, but with built-in B+Tree? (This *is* a serious question, as I've only been peripherally following this issue...but I thought that I had heard that it wasn't really anything serious.)"

I wouldn't worry about Oracle buying Sleepycat or Innobase. Yes, MySQL did acquire SapDB (formerly known as Adabase, now known as MaxDB) which is a direct competitor with Oracle although SapDB/MaxDB is not deployed in the numbers that Oracle, DB2 or SQLServer is. MaxDB (aka SapDB, Adabase) is an enterprise level app whereas MySQL is a much lighter and simpler database.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-15 08:40 · Score: 1

No, but again, given the potential need for distribution under the strictest interpretation thereof, they could very easily need to integrate MySQL itself with a proprietary product in a way that would require a non-GPL license, as I think I made clear in the GP post.
Okay, so here's where the viral nature of the GPL comes in. This is a little bit tricky legally, so stay with me here. Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, if one piece of software depends on another to function, it is classified as a derivative work. As such, it must be licensed under the GPL. The customer's use of MySQL requires InnoDB (for example) to function. Thus, the customer's use of MySQL is a derivative work of InnoDB. Therefore, according to the GPL, it must be licensed under the GPL.
Now, the customer wants to use MySQL under a non-GPL license. While they can do so, assuming there aren't any flaws in the logic above, they cannot legally link a copy of MySQL that has been so licensed with any GPL back end software unless they obtain an exemption to the GPL from the copyright owners of the back end---in this example, the company owning InnoDB.
Thus, strictly speaking, they have to get a non-GPL use license for the backing store or else the non-GPL license for MySQL itself isn't worth the paper it's written on. Thus, because the definition of "distribution" in the GPL is so vague, and because most interpretations are not sufficiently permissive to use these types of GPLed software in internal business applications under the terms of the GPL, the inability to obtain a non-GPL license for the backing store DB essentially means that Oracle just took MySQL off the market for most corporate use that requires transaction support.
Now do you see why the Oracle buyout is very bad news and why linking exceptions are vital to the continued success of free software in enterprise?

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-15 08:53 · Score: 1

No, that's not the point of the GPL. The point of the GPL is to ensure that people who use a piece of software have the ability to maintain it and to prevent companies from making software generally available that contains GPLed code without making it possible for the people who own the software to modify it.
That's a completely different scenario than the one I'm talking about. What I'm talking about is what most people would consider internal use---software written for use by a business to conduct its business. This may involve working with outside groups. Those outside groups, however, are doing their work under contract with the business, and thus are, in effect, an extension of that business.
What I'm proposing is extending the rights granted to individuals by the GPL to also extend to corporations. This is a very narrow exemption to the distribution terms of the GPL, as it would only apply to corporations and persons or entities working on their behalf. Most interpretations of the GPL already allow such use within a corporation, so in effect, the extension I propose only extends the private, sourceless binary distribution right to encompass distrbution to contract employees and corporate partners for limited use in fulfilling the terms of a contractual relationship.
I'm not convinced for one second that preventing such (again, very limited scope) essentially internal distribution was the whole point of the GPL. I think it is an unfortunate oversight in the original design, and one that should be rectified in the future, as making such a change would make GPLed software substantially more palatable for corporate use without significantly reducing the effectiveness of the GPL as a tool for openness in software in the general sense..

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-15 09:00 · Score: 1

You have a strange definition of commercial distribution. Commercial distribution means selling something for a profit.
I'm talking about Company 1 giving a copy of something to Company 2 so that they can access Company 1's internal databases for the purposes of fulfilling a contract, which is not at all the same thing. In a strict legal sense, Company 2 is acting as an agent for Company 1, and thus, the rather odd terms of the GPL notwithstanding, should generally be considered part of Company 1 while doing such business.
The way I see it, if Company 1 has the right to distribute a modified binary internally (which is allowed under the GPL, there's no reason to arbitrarily prevent them from allowing Company 2 to use it during the course of doing business with them, so long as Company 2 does not use the modified version for doing business with anyone else.
If the intent is to provide a tool for Company 2's general use, with the intent that that tool should have some purpose for existing after termination of the relationship with Company 1, then I agree that it should be required to be released under the terms of the GPL.
BTW, the linking that you describe may or may not be legal. That's a very fuzzy grey area. Most companies would be squeamish about doing that, and rightfully so.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-15 09:06 · Score: 1

On the one hand, you claim that GPL developers don't want it used in this way, and on the other hand, you claim that the license doesn't prevent it. I'm a little confused here.... :-)
It's the difference between employees and contractors (individual or corporate) that is the problem. The GPL, because of the way it is worded, effectively makes a distinction between these two cases. The whole point of my comment is that it should not, and that internal distribution to contractors (even if they work off-site) should be explicitly permitted just as internal distribution to employees is permitted.
That's all. I would have thought that this would be pretty obvious to most people that such a change would be a good thing. It's a very minor relaxation of a license term that nobody should really care about dogmatically, but which causes real problems for corporate adoption.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 11:11 · Score: 0

Usually a buyout like this would include some non-compete clause.
Re:Interesting .... by killjoe · 2006-02-15 12:42 · Score: 1

"No, but again, given the potential need for distribution under the strictest interpretation thereof, they could very easily need to integrate MySQL itself with a proprietary product in a way that would require a non-GPL license, as I think I made clear in the GP post."

I still don't understand how that would happen. Unless you modified the MYSQL source code in some way how can you possibly be subject to the GPL.

"Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, if one piece of software depends on another to function, it is classified as a derivative work. As such, it must be licensed under the GPL. The customer's use of MySQL requires InnoDB (for example) to function. Thus, the customer's use of MySQL is a derivative work of InnoDB. Therefore, according to the GPL, it must be licensed under the GPL."

Who is interpreting the GPL this way? It seems like you just decided to interpret it that way to erect a straw man. Can you point out to any member of the FSF or any prominent legal scholar who has this intepretation?

"Now do you see why the Oracle buyout is very bad news and why linking exceptions are vital to the continued success of free software in enterprise?"

No I don't. You have made a faulty premise and then drawn a weird conclusion.

But you still haven't answered my question though. What enterprise is in the business of distributing modified mysql software? If that's too hard then what enterprises are involved with delivering products linked against the mysql software?

I can't think of even one company that modifies or links against the mysql codebase and delivers a product. I think you have somehow confused USING the product with MODIFYING AND DISTRIBUTING the product. For 99.999999% of "enterprises" this is a non issue because they simply USE the product.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Interesting .... by jbolden · 2006-02-15 13:41 · Score: 1

The linking I described was an example of why I don't think your idea of allowing GPLed code to link with any OSI approved licensed cose is a good idea. Under the current GPL its not gray at all. When I link A&B the conbined work is GPLed and thus I can't link (A&B) to C.

BTW Company 1 having the right to distribute a modified binary internally is still somewhat iffy with regard to the GPL, in the way you mean. A,B,C,D all work for company A.

A writes program X and releases it under the GPL
B modifies program X and produces a binary. He gives this binary to C
C demands source
B refuses.
A sues B for violating his copyright

B clearly made a copy of the code. A does not agree this is within the terms of his license. C believes the act of getting the software was distribution. The burdon of proof is entirely on B to prove that giving the copy to C wasn't distribution even though C asserts it was.

IMHO B probably loses.

You see you don't even need a company 2 here.
Re:Interesting .... by dgatwood · 2006-02-16 05:32 · Score: 1

"Under a strict interpretation of the GPL, if one piece of software depends on another to function, it is classified as a derivative work. As such, it must be licensed under the GPL. The customer's use of MySQL requires InnoDB (for example) to function. Thus, the customer's use of MySQL is a derivative work of InnoDB. Therefore, according to the GPL, it must be licensed under the GPL."
Who is interpreting the GPL this way? It seems like you just decided to interpret it that way to erect a straw man. Can you point out to any member of the FSF or any prominent legal scholar who has this intepretation?
By "depends upon", I mean direct dependency, i.e. linking. And it is pretty much the consensus of every lawyer I've ever talked to who has looked at the GPL.
I can't think of even one company that modifies or links against the mysql codebase and delivers a product. I think you have somehow confused USING the product with MODIFYING AND DISTRIBUTING the product. For 99.999999% of "enterprises" this is a non issue because they simply USE the product.
How do you propose to use MySQL without linking to its GPLed C access libraries? Unless you use it indirectly via Perl or PHP, I can't think of one company that has ever used MySQL without linking against its GPLed code.

--
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Re:Interesting .... by killjoe · 2006-02-16 07:43 · Score: 1

"By "depends upon", I mean direct dependency, i.e. linking. And it is pretty much the consensus of every lawyer I've ever talked to who has looked at the GPL."

So which companies make products that link against the MYSQL codebase?

"How do you propose to use MySQL without linking to its GPLed C access libraries? "

Most people use ODBC or JDBC. Some people use the framework that came with their open source language like python or ruby.

"I can't think of one company that has ever used MySQL without linking against its GPLed code."

Aaah I see now. You have no idea what linking means. Linking means I have some source code and it links against their codebase during compile time. Linking does not mean I am USING the ODBC or the JDBC connector.

So there you go. Unless your company is in the business of writing ODBC, ADO, JDBC, or other database adapters you have nothing to worry about. In fact unless your company is in the business of writing software that you sell or distribute to outsiders you have nothing to worry about.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Interesting .... by JulesLt · 2006-02-16 20:58 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, GPL 3 and RMS pronouncements on open source in general suggest it's not going to happen. His intention has always been far more radical than the terms of the GPL suggest, and in recent interviews, he's talked about how the Free software movement will eventually have to cut off the oxygen of proprietary development, by cutting out the loopholes that allow non-GPL software to link to and use GPL code.

It's funny, in a way, how much this parallels the strategy of the largest IT firms - get people dependent on your systems, then start using that power to make them jump the way you want to.

Of course, I don't think it's likely to happen - I'd put a significant wager that the community would split and RMS lose control, if that isn't happening already, looking at how GPL 3 has been received.

--
'Capitalists of the world, unite! Oh ... you have' (League Against Tedium)

Why do this? by BigZaphod · 2006-02-14 13:42 · Score: 2, Interesting

Why buy up all these other database alternatives? The only good reason I can think of is that they are trying to cover all ranges of database needs. I guess that makes sense, but are they going to combine all of these products into one interoperable system and thus destroy the original advantages the previous products had?

--
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch

Re:Why do this? by Fulcrum+of+Evil · 2006-02-14 13:44 · Score: 1

Why buy up all these other database alternatives?

To screw with competitors like Mysql.

--
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
Re:Why do this? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-02-14 14:15 · Score: 1

Don't blame Oracle (since it's their right to buy software); blame the people selling to Oracle.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 14:21 · Score: 1

Don't blame Oracle (since it's their right to buy software); blame the people selling to Oracle.

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. It their right to sell to Oracle also.

Why not blame open source software developers who depend heavily on products that they can't control. I'm not saying it's always a bad idea to link to BDB, I'm just saying that if your project can be seriously hurt by the actions of another project, you need to have a plan B.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by larry+bagina · 2006-02-14 14:42 · Score: 2

Berkeley DB was, is , and will always be open source. The Cat is out of the bag, and it's not going back in. I say hurray to Sleepy Cat: The open source world has a database and they got an undisclosed bonus for all their work.

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.
Re:Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:55 · Score: 0

TimesTen was considered the fastest in-memory DB in the financial software industry. Oracle bought it, and stuffed it with Java, and other usual Oracle thingies. like JDBC and Web based administration etc.. I haven't tried it since, but I will not be surprised if its benchmarks are comparable to Microsoft Access.
Re:Why do this? by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 15:03 · Score: 1

So fork BDB - that's your right for open source software. :) If this bothers people, that's what will happen. The right to fork is a significant guarantee of long-term availability.
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 15:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

There are two important decisions that I think are relevent:

(1) Oracle bought not one, but TWO mysql backends, which happened to be both of their transactional backends.
(2) MySQL AB licenses the client libraries under the GPL.

The only conclusion that I can come to from either of those is control.

MySQL AB needed control over their MySQL database, and so they restricted the distribution of the client libraries. You can argue about what licenses are acceptable for libraries in general, but for a client-server program, it is very strange to restrict the distribution of the client libraries. The decision therefore must have been deliberate, and made for a business reason. That reason is control.

And Oracle obviously made a business decision. There was question about the motives after buying Innobase, but those questions are now answered when they purchased the only remaining candidate for a transactional storage engine for the MySQL commercial product.

So here we have Oracle which clearly thinks they have control over MySQL AB, and MySQL AB which clearly thinks they have control over the MySQL database. For that to be false you would have to assume that one of those companies made a serious error in their business decision. So, Oracle now has some substantial degree of control over MySQL database.

To prevent Oracle from exercising this control, we need to
(1) fork the MySQL database
(2) do a cleanroom reverse engineering of the client libraries and make them LGPL/whatever (in order to keep current commercial MySQL users in business)
(3) fork InnoDB and/or BDB to make sure we have an open source backend that is actively developed.

By that time, it will all be irrelevant.

Fortunately, PostgreSQL is immune from these types of licensing problems. The client libraries and the database itself are freely destributable. And the developers work for a wide variety of companies. As far as I know, FirebirdSQL, Inges, and SAP DB are also free of licensing problems. That's 4 good alternatives if Oracle really tries to set MySQL back.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by msobkow · 2006-02-14 15:08 · Score: 1

I think fine tuning would be the main benefit.
My understanding is that mainframe DB/2 lets you specify the type of storage and indexing to provide over data. PostgreSQL provides some control over that detail. MySQL was pretty much built as a virtual database over real containers. Sybase and Ingres have always allowed a fair bit of control over their indexing and container options. Oracle has some tuning options as well.
But if a vendor is targetting environments that need fine-tuning to eek every last bit of performance out of the hardware, it's always good to have more options for certain performance profiles. They're not common, but there might be a large enough customer base to consider adding that type of tuning to Oracle.
The fine-tuning options are all that significantly distinguish the top 3-4 RDBMS vendors. They all meet the checklists for multi-language, multi-platform drivers, SQL92+ standards support, integrity constraints, triggers, stored procs, replication options, online backup, and hot-failover and/or cluster support. You just need to buy into vendor-specific syntax to tweak the performance. It's getting hard to find specific areas where one vendor is "better" or "easier" than another.

--
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Re:Why do this? by Overly+Critical+Guy · 2006-02-14 15:43 · Score: 1

Huh? That doesn't make any sense. It their right to sell to Oracle also.

I'm saying if people are going to get mad at Oracle for buying up MySQL backends, they should get mad at the people selling them.

--
"Sufferin' succotash."
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:24 · Score: 1

Ok, fair complaint. The companies are gone now, a part of Oracle. So there's not much left to be mad at, except Oracle.

We could get really mad at the former owners, but it's not easy when most of the people here have their price as well. If you own a small, modestly successful enterprise and Oracle lays down some cash, most people would take it, and not ask questions.

Maybe get mad at the vendors who left themselves -- and therefore their customers -- so vulnerable? MySQL, in particular, who had the rug pulled out from under them.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by IdleTime · 2006-02-14 16:45 · Score: 4, Insightful

Good Luck in writing a transactional backend engine. It's hard work and requires quite a few people with deep knowledge of databases on a very low level and I know since i work in the business. Add to the fact that you have to start from scratch, that you will have to come up with something that has enough performance to be a viable alternative and it needs to be tested thoroughly on all platforms and be wordsize and endian independent.

Some people talk out of their behind.

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:59 · Score: 1

That was my point, is that none of those things will actually happen. That's why I said "By that time, it will all be irrelevant."

By that I meant, when hell freezes over, and all those things are rewritten or forked, Oracle will have already accomplished its goal of delaying MySQL's development and adoption, which will effectively kill it.

Although that still doesn't really explain your post. Nobody would need to rewrite BDB or InnoDB, they would just need to fork it. You still need someone who knows what they're doing, but it's not like the storage engine has to be written from scratch in a week.

And a transactional system isn't necessarily that complicated. Heck, build it on top of a transactional file system and a lot of the work is done (I know most transactional filesystems provide no isolation guarantee, but you at least have atomicity and durability).

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by IdleTime · 2006-02-14 17:11 · Score: 1

Yeah, it can probably be forked off, not sure how the buys and the licenses work out, not my cup of tea.

Transactional engine using filesystem? *shudder*

I'm impressed that you think writing a transactional backend is no big deal. Want a new job?

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Re:Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 18:19 · Score: 0

I thing you may need to take Ingres off that list. Ingres Corporation (www.ingres.com) now seems to heading towards a MySQL style of license.
Which is quite a change of tack from the licensing position the previous owners of Ingres (CA) adopted.
Re:Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 19:07 · Score: 0

Actually, Ingres is now dual GPL/commercial licensed, SAP DB/MaxDB is dual GPL/commercial licensed (with SAP owning the IP), Firebird is under a modified MPL, and PostgreSQL is under a BSD license. So, basically, PostgreSQL and Firebird can't be bought.

The main problem to MySQL's commercial business is embedding... no one can use MySQL with Sleepycat or InnoDB storage engines in ANY proprietary product without their own product being GPL or by buying a commercial license... now it's up to Oracle as to how much MySQL has to pay for that license; That's where Oracle's got 'em by the.. err.. balls.
Re:Why do this? by sveinungkv · 2006-02-14 22:22 · Score: 1

A simpler alternative would be for comersial users to start use Mysql under GPL. The GPL allows internal use. As log as you don't redistribute, there is no problem. Even if you redistribute, to license you code under GPL is not that bad. ;) My guess is that many pays for commercial Mysql to get support or to make sure it will still be developed.

To prevent Oracle from exercising this control, we need to
(...) (2) do a cleanroom reverse engineering of the client libraries and make them LGPL/whatever
IMHO, that would be backstabbing Mysql. Mysql is already available under a free (as in freedom) license, so free software can freely use it. The only problem here will be for the unfree software, and I don't think "we" (I guess you were refering to the FLOSS comunity, not those using Mysql in unfree software) don't "need" to do anything to help unfree software. I think it's only fair that developers of unfree software pays money to use Mysql like they do today. If they want to pay someone to clean room it, or someone starts to do it, I won't be in the way. (Even if I think a better solution would be to contact Mysql and pay them to release the librarys under LGPL) But we should remember that we do not owe anyone gratis work so their software can stay unfree.

--
Spelling/grammar nazis welcome (English is not my first language and I am trying to improve my spelling/grammar)
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 02:52 · Score: 1

Transactional engine using filesystem? *shudder*

It could be done as a proof of concept at least. My point was that the tools are out there, and that building a transactional system is reinventing the wheel. How much of the wheel you want to reinvent is up to you.

Want a new job?

Looking right now actually.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 03:44 · Score: 0

Too bad there isn't a good free library for handling transactions. It is tricky stuff, but I think a lot of the complexity could be buried under a well formulated and well documented API. Java (not my favorite language), does provide for atomic transactions in the language itself. Last I looked, C++ was in the process of standardizing some of the the building blocks also. C is close enough to the iron that you can do test and set more directly. But there's a little more too it that just providing atomicity. There are innumerable deadlocking, message passing, concurrency, and other issues to contend with. Hopefully providing the building blocks in the languages will lead to some higher level libraries though. There are a lot of places this could be useful outside of the traditional database paradigm.

If there is a good library for this stuff, I'm not aware of it, and would appreciate a good whack with a clue bat.
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:44 · Score: 1

I was saying that more as a hypothetical. Obviously none of those 3 things are going to happen any time soon, which is why I think MySQL will have some serious problems.

You are correct. Making a non-GPL client library would effectively be stabbing MySQL AB in the back, and eleiminating their primary source of revenue.

It's much easier to just use PostgreSQL.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by Deven · 2006-02-15 06:05 · Score: 1

Too bad there isn't a good free library for handling transactions.

Well, there's always the Berkeley DB 1.x libraries -- those remain available under the original BSD license. Of course, Sleepycat has made tremendous improvements since then, but it's still a viable starting point that someone could work from...

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:Why do this? by aevans · 2006-02-15 08:39 · Score: 1

You don't know that MySQL had the rug pulled out from under them. Maybe Oracle bought sleepycat and they keep releasing BDB as open source.
Re:Why do this? by aevans · 2006-02-15 08:47 · Score: 1

Postgres just isn't in the same category as MySQL. It isn't stable.

Flames aside, Postgres developers are just as susceptable to big paychecks as anyone else. The difference is that they don't have a valuable trademark or a reputation worth buying. And that they're not even on Oracle's radar as a competitor. Maybe next year they will be. And maybe they can all retire to islands when they get bought out. Or maybe they'll all take rewarding jobs at Oracle integrating Postgres with Peoplesoft & Siebel. Or maybe they'll choose to keep working on it.

But MySQL and they're current customers aren't threatened. In fact, they're guaranteed safety. The question is whether the BDB and InnoDB developers are still motivated enough to keep developing newer and better code when they could surfing privateislandsonline.com with intent.
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 10:37 · Score: 1

Where are you getting your information? PostgreSQL is very stable, and if you want to argue otherwise you need evidence.

PostgreSQL is less vulernable because the developers all work for different companies. Some of those companies are very large. At least one of those companies is much larger than Oracle (Fujitsu).

And it IS on Oracle's radar. It has been at least since Oracle fought the assignment of the .ORG or .INFO registry to Afilias, and lost (Afilias runs those registries from PostgreSQL).

PostgreSQL may not be on every web hosting ad you see, but don't let that fool you.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 10:42 · Score: 1

You don't think it's a coincidence that Oracle bought the only two open source transactional backends available for MySQL?

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by IdleTime · 2006-02-15 13:21 · Score: 1

Job? Need a BS at least, preferably into something related to C programming, SQL or database theory.

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 14:05 · Score: 1

I'll have a BS in EE from UC San Diego this June. My "depth" was in software systems. Took one database class, got an A and a letter of recommendation. I took every class required for a CE major except compilers. Independently read "An Introduction to Database Systems" out of interest, and followed it up with the 3rd manifesto, also by C.J. Date. I'm looking for a job in California starting a few weeks after graduation.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Why do this? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-16 07:46 · Score: 0

Do you have a webpage or a resume I can look at ?
Re:Why do this? by jadavis · 2006-02-16 10:04 · Score: 1

Please email me your email address at j3davis [at] ucsd (dot) edu, and I'll be happy to send you my resume.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

diversity???? by slackaddict · 2006-02-14 13:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

"Having previously acquired Innobase, Oracle is certainly taking a look at diversity."

Uhhh... it looks to me like they are purchasing their competition to either insure it isn't developed to the point that it can be a serious threat to their own database product or to quietly change it so much that it's useless and kill the project. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened...

--
ConsultingFair.com

Re:diversity???? by malraid · 2006-02-14 13:57 · Score: 1

diversity would be buying "Dunking Donuts"... this is core business as usual.

--
please excuse my apathy

Please - anyone see this not happening? by RiotXIX · 2006-02-14 13:44 · Score: 1

It's just like the parable of the mouse and the blind horse - in the end, it all came together from nowhere.

--
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret

Re:Please - anyone see this not happening? by HappyEngineer · 2006-02-14 13:56 · Score: 1

I don't get it.

Or, are you saying that it just doesn't make sense?

--
Cow Cube
Re:Please - anyone see this not happening? by RiotXIX · 2006-02-14 14:53 · Score: 1

Kind of - think about it: 1 + 2 = 3. The mouse travelling at the speed of a horse under its control will always outrun a sleepy-cat. It's the only option the mouse had looking at the circumstances, and given Oracle must be the mouse in the story, it's in the winning situation.

--
"You know you don't act like a scientist, you're more like a game show host." Dana Barret

Damn. by cosmotron · 2006-02-14 13:44 · Score: 4, Interesting

What a bad reason to lay off their employees. I can't believe that they bought another company...

--
Ryan - http://www.thecosmotron.com/

Re:Damn. by jadavis · 2006-02-14 14:10 · Score: 1

The terms of the deal were not disclosed. Perhaps it was a stock deal?

And even if not, it's not like the money was spent on some party. That money goes to another company, who will use that money to buy labor and/or capital. If an Oracle employee is being a net negative, it's economically more efficient to reallocate those human resources elsewhere. If they are highly qualified, maybe they could go work for google, or someone who could use them more effectively.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

The "Symantec" and Macromedia Approach by joe_n_bloe · 2006-02-14 13:45 · Score: 2, Interesting

Buy good product. Stop selling product.

Drove me nuts back in my Mac programming days. But at least now developers can fork the open source code, should the creator decide it shouldn't be so open any more.

Re:The "Symantec" and Macromedia Approach by jadavis · 2006-02-14 14:04 · Score: 1

But at least now developers can fork the open source code

True. However, any successful move of development from one organization to open source coders is usually heavily backed by the organization, at least to get it started. Oracle knows that the organization of the project itself takes a lot of work to nurture, and that anyone who forked development wouldn't really get off the ground for a while, if ever. And time is valuable to Oracle now.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:The "Symantec" and Macromedia Approach by marafa · 2006-02-14 21:02 · Score: 1

thats true
look at nessus and openvas. the guys at nessus decided to drop the gpl for version 3 and nessus 2.x was forked to gnessus (beep! illegal manouver) and then named changed to openvas.

--
_ In Egypt Networks: Network Solutions with a Twist

is that the way... by netdur · 2006-02-14 13:46 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Oracle wanna "fight" oss competitors?

wonder if Oracle understand what open source is... and what fork means

--
"Steve Jobs invented the world" -- Bill W. GATES

Re:is that the way... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 13:56 · Score: 0

Yes. This is an _excellent_ time to dive in and learn this code. Just reviewed the licence and it seems clear that berkeley db is totally forkable.
Re:is that the way... by robertjw · 2006-02-14 14:04 · Score: 1

It will be interesting to see how this plays out. I have no doubt Ellison has nefarious purposes in all of this. Will someone fork these projects and pick up the torch? Will new products be built?

--
Find coupons in Greeley
Re:is that the way... by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2006-02-14 14:56 · Score: 2, Interesting

Sure Oracle understands. They also understand that enterprises want support . Any company can pick up the source code to Berkeley DB and run with it. But that company cannot sell a commercial license, they can only provide support.
Re:is that the way... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:15 · Score: 0

So if a fork can provide the only thing that enterprises want, what exactly is the problem?
Re:is that the way... by allanw · 2006-02-14 16:28 · Score: 1

If Sleepycat doesn't license BerkeleyDB to be used commercially by MySQL, then it'll only be available with the GPL (or whatever the free one is) version. And "enterprises" would probably be using the commercial one.
Re:is that the way... by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:38 · Score: 1

Good thing we still have PostgreSQL. Companies can and do offer support, and offer commercial licensed versions.

And for those who need world-class support, Sun offers PostgreSQL support 24/7.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:is that the way... by ArikTheRed · 2006-02-14 17:35 · Score: 1

Unfortunately, the open version is lightyears behind the commercial one. And that was three years ago when I last looked into it. Ultimately, yes, we still have PG!

--
http://www.coderoshi.com/
Re:is that the way... by mjuarez · 2006-02-14 18:36 · Score: 1

Sure Oracle understands. They also understand that enterprises want support . Any company can pick up the source code to Berkeley DB and run with it. But that company cannot sell a commercial license, they can only provide support.

That's no problem. Heck, you can have the database source, use it for whatever you want, it's under a GPL license. And yes, if a company spends a couple of months with a team of developers, probably could also give decent support and/or custom development. The ONLY case where I couldn't do anything was if you specifically need a Commercial License, so that you won't have to give away your source code. But that's going to be less than 1% of the cases out there.

Marcos

Its not competition by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-14 13:46 · Score: 1

BDB doesn't compete with oracle in any way.

Re:Its not competition by jadavis · 2006-02-14 13:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

Yes it does, as a potential replacement for InnoDB as a backend for MySQL. When Oracle bought Innobase (makers of InnoDB), all the MySQL people suggested improving the BerkeleyDB backend to make it their primary transaction-supporting backend. Now, looks like that's owned by Oracle to. Maybe it's a coincidence? Or maybe the licensing of MySQL really is a weakness*, and Oracle saw a cheap way to exploit it.

* MySQL licenses the client libraries as GPL, meaning that any application that has support for MySQL needs to either be GPL or get a commercial license.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Its not competition by Professor_UNIX · 2006-02-14 14:11 · Score: 1

When Oracle bought Innobase (makers of InnoDB), all the MySQL people suggested improving the BerkeleyDB backend to make it their primary transaction-supporting backend. Now, looks like that's owned by Oracle to.
BerkeleyDB is open source. Who cares whether or not Oracle owns SleepyCat? Isn't the worst they can do is force all the employees to stop working on it during work hours? Nothing stops them from developing it on their own time or even letting another group of developers take over.
Re:Its not competition by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-14 14:20 · Score: 1

Quite a few people care. Just because it's an open source project doesn't mean that the amount of work it takes to keep it going is any less significant. If developers are forced to stop working on the project at certain times or if the project needs to be forked, you can expect a large pause in development that can seriously disrupt the project.

Open source is good, but it doesn't miraculously solve all problems.
Re:Its not competition by jadavis · 2006-02-14 14:27 · Score: 2, Insightful

Because, many people depend on commercially-licensed MySQL because they have a non-GPL product that they want to include MySQL support for.

Now, the commercial distribution of MySQL may be weaker than the GPL version, because Oracle can stop licensing the "good" backends to MySQL AB for them to license to you. And the GPL version is highly restrictive because you can't link the client libraries to non-GPL clients.

And if MySQL AB stops developing MySQL because they can't sell people a database without transactions, the development organization of MySQL database is gone. It takes a long time and/or a lot of help to get that organization back, and by that time it may be irrelevent.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Its not competition by rthille · 2006-02-14 14:29 · Score: 1

There you're wrong. We (Openwave) used Oracle in our flagship email system, and swapped out the backend for Sleepycat (on the low end) in order to be able to meet a lower price point. For our application, performance was similar or better on similar hardware, but the maintainence and supporting utilities weren't there.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Its not competition by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 14:30 · Score: 2, Interesting

As I said to the other poster: The BDB code may be covered by patents which Oracle could choose to exercise, thereby preventing the BDB code from being used despite its liberal license.

--
LL
Re:Its not competition by mccoma · 2006-02-14 14:57 · Score: 1

I guess we have a new rule in the "Dual License Business Model" - you need to own all the software you are licensing.
Well, maybe all this will start more people looking at PostgreSQL.
Re:Its not competition by ZeekWatson · 2006-02-14 15:57 · Score: 0, Informative

Only DB1 is open in a way that is useful to commercial software vendors (ie the folks at Mysql). DB1 is BSD licensed while DB[2-4] are licensed under the Sleepycat license which is only free for GPL software (basically).

While mysql (the db) is GPL'd, it is also proprietary. Mysql (the commercial entity) has to abide by the Sleepycat license if they distribute private versions of the server, so Oracle purchasing Sleepycat has a chilling effect on Mysql (the commercial entity) and the DBD backend.
Re:Its not competition by killjoe · 2006-02-14 22:38 · Score: 1

May? Do you have any documentation on this or are you purely speaking out of your ass?

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Its not competition by arivanov · 2006-02-14 23:29 · Score: 1

It does.

Oracle used to be the primary database for building telephony and network equipment. If you take a switch from 5-7 years ago quite a few were carrying an Oracle install.

Nowdays it is either MySQL or BDB.

Granted, this is a low volume market it is still a market for Oracle where it directly competes with BDB and BDB won the competition hands down.

Also, on the heels of the telecoms industry other industries have started looking at using a backend like BDB and embedding it into applications instead of running everything over an SQL layer. Personally I do not like the approach, but it is gaining popularity. It definitely makes sense for a lot of stuff when combined with an object persistence layer.

--
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
Re:Its not competition by Professor_UNIX · 2006-02-15 02:07 · Score: 1

And if MySQL AB stops developing MySQL because they can't sell people a database without transactions, the development organization of MySQL database is gone. It takes a long time and/or a lot of help to get that organization back, and by that time it may be irrelevent.
So we'll adapt, we've done it before. Remember mSQL? It used to be pretty hot shit in the mid-1990s until MySQL came along. If MySQL dies then people will just switch over to PostgreSQL.

SleepyCat huh? by rob_squared · 2006-02-14 13:47 · Score: 3, Funny

Well, don't walk around their headquarters at night then, you might trip on the damn thing because its sleeping in the middle of the hallway.

--
I don't get it.

Re:SleepyCat huh? by Tim+Browse · 2006-02-14 15:00 · Score: 1

Illiad? Is that you?

Taking a look at Diversity? by hedronist · 2006-02-14 13:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Diversity? It looks more like careening towards homogeneity to me. First they bought Innobase, giving them the ability to cut MySQL's transaction nuts off, then they buy another open-sourece-friendly DBMS which has transaction capability.

Now, if you were the largest commercial DBMS vendor in the world and you were worried about the OSS people moving into your space, what would you buy in order to stop them cold? Me? I'd keep them out of atomic transaction space.

Do keep in mind we are talking about Larry Ellison here. Just google on "larry ellison greed" to see what some other people think of this champion of diversity.

Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:08 · Score: 0
Now, if you were the largest commercial DBMS vendor in the world and you were worried about the OSS people moving into your space, what would you buy in order to stop them cold?

A massive web hosting company and a book publishing firm.

PostgreSQL is BSD-licensed and better than MySQL. There are two main advantages MySQL has:
1. It's easy to find web hosting with MySQL, not so easy for PostgreSQL.
2. It's easy to find books on MySQL, not so easy for PostgreSQL.
Oracle can cut the nuts off MySQL at any point. But their real problem is that they can't possibly do the same for PostgreSQL, because everything that makes it go is BSD licensed. So Oracle need to make sure MySQL maintains its userbase.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by saifatlast · 2006-02-14 14:09 · Score: 2, Funny

Now, if you were the largest commercial DBMS vendor in the world and you were worried about the OSS people moving into your space, what would you buy in order to stop them cold?

Shhh!! You idiot, don't give them any ideas!!

--
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't regist
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jrockway · 2006-02-14 14:13 · Score: 1

In other news, 1.25 seconds after SleepyCat was bought, a group of MySQL developers forked BDB and life moved on.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 14:27 · Score: 1

Are you sure the BDB code is not covered by patents now owned by Oracle? What happens if they should choose to exercise them?

--
LL
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by rthille · 2006-02-14 14:32 · Score: 1

The Sleepycat code is dual licensed. It's only opensource for opensource. That can be a problem for commercial users of the software.

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by Christopher+B.+Brown · 2006-02-14 15:05 · Score: 1

Unfortunately for MySQL AB, that would only allow them to release the resulting combination under the GPL. They would not be able to sell proprietary-licensed versions for $400 or so a crack.
That kind of undermines the whole "You're always safer if you buy commercial licenses" thing...

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 15:09 · Score: 1

One other MySQL advantage: millions of downloads and lots of places like Wikipedia and Sabre and Yahoo and Google using it in world-beating products with massive loads.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by AuMatar · 2006-02-14 15:39 · Score: 1

But MySQL is the app tha uses BDB, not the app calling MySQL. So the application wouldn't need to be open source, MySQL using BDB would need to be.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jrockway · 2006-02-14 15:58 · Score: 1

Exactly. IE doesn't have to be open source just because it talks to Apache (or a pure-GPL web server).

MySQL is the server, and right now the only client library is GPL'd. Nothing is stopping anyone from making a non-GPL client library, and linking their proprietary app to that. Kind of shitty ethics-wise, but still possible.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:46 · Score: 1

How did you get here?

slashdot. ORG

That was brought to you by PostgreSQL, as with all other .org or .info lookups.

The fact is, there is a lot of heavy commercial use of both databases. With public involvement/use from companies like Fujitsu, Sun, the American Chemical Society, BASF, the National Weather Service, U.S. Dept. of State, and many more, PostgreSQL does not have anything to prove over MySQL any more.

http://www.postgresql.org/about/users

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:49 · Score: 1

because everything that makes it go is BSD licensed

And because the developers are physically spread around the globe, and spread among many companies. And the development model is already built in a distributed way.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by ajs · 2006-02-14 17:32 · Score: 1

I'm still at a loss to understand this attitude (just as I was when so many people predicted doom for MySQL when Inno was bought out). These are open source products, and there's absolutely nothing preventing MySQL from continuing to use them. Of course, now Oracle has the right to release a closed-source fork of these products, but that doesn't change the fact that the open source version is still out there, and thousands of people around the world have and will continue to hack on them.

About the only thing that this does to MySQL is to potentially reduce the number of active developers working on the back-ends for a short period, and might increase MySQL's costs.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by elp · 2006-02-14 18:52 · Score: 1

My bet is that within 3 months of oracle flexing their muscles with SleepyCat (remember they haven't done anything yet) Mysql will move MaxDB into the standard mysql distribution and converting will probably just be a dump and reload operation. Why do you think Mysql has suddenly developed stored-procedures, view, and sub queries in such a short period of time?

MaxDB is the SAP database and SAP are investors in Mysql AB.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by einhverfr · 2006-02-14 20:17 · Score: 1

These are open source products, and there's absolutely nothing preventing MySQL from continuing to use them.

Right. But there is the matter that MySQL AB makes a fair bit of money off commercial licensing of their product and this may impact *this* part of their business.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by dodobh · 2006-02-14 21:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

Except that the closest competitor to Oracle is PostgreSQL, and _that_ one is slightly harder to buy out.

MySQL just had the hype.

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by killjoe · 2006-02-14 21:57 · Score: 1

So are they going to buy postgres, firebird, maxdb and ingress too? If they wanted to attack the transactional database open source projects you'd think they would pick at mysql last.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by killjoe · 2006-02-14 21:59 · Score: 1

No, are you sure any software you use isn't covered by patents owned by oracle? No. You can never be sure.

The great thing though is that you could be sued for simply using a product that violates a patent. Isn't america great!.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jbolden · 2006-02-15 00:57 · Score: 1

Actually you are wrong here. A client designed to work only with MySQL would be a derived work of MySQL even if it didn't contain any lines of code. That was what the "Wind Done Wrong" suit established.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by Zontar+The+Mindless · 2006-02-15 01:23 · Score: 1

Thanks, elp! I can always use a little extra cash.

While you're writing the cheque, I'll explain why your bet is wrong:

The MaxDB and MySQL codebases are entirely separate. The MySQL and MaxDB dev teams are also entirely separate, and have separate management and support teams as well. There's no MaxDB code in MySQL, nor the reverse.

MySQL stored routines, views, subqueries, etc. are in no way derived from MaxDB code.

Let me restate that unambiguously: There are no MaxDB features in MySQL, and there is no MaxDB code in MySQL. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nichevo. And it's 99.9999% certain that there never, ever will be.

It would require years - if not decades - to perform any non-trivial merge of MaxDB code into MySQL. The build processes themselves are totally incompatible.

Anyone with even a passing familiarity with the code or development processes for these products knows this.

--
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by Deven · 2006-02-15 03:16 · Score: 3, Informative

Diversity? It looks more like careening towards homogeneity to me.

I should point out that the Slashdot editor changed my words while leaving them attributed to me.

I said nothing about diversity. My original quote was "Having previously acquired Innobase, what does the future hold for these open-source databases?" The editor changed the end of the sentence to "Oracle is certainly taking a look at diversity." -- those weren't my words, despite remaining inside the quotes.

But hey, I got a submission accepted, and that's always nice! :-)

--

Deven
"Simple things should be simple, and complex things should be possible." - Alan Kay
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by bracher · 2006-02-15 04:01 · Score: 1

Diversity? It looks more like careening towards homogeneity to me. First they bought Innobase, giving them the ability to cut MySQL's transaction nuts off, then they buy another open-sourece-friendly DBMS which has transaction capability.

It's more than that... InnoDB gets more press (and possibly use), but BerkeleyDB has been the other transactioning backend for mysql for a long time now. longer than InnoDB, I think. Now Oracle owns every transactioning table type that mysql ships with. That can't be good...
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by stuntpope · 2006-02-15 06:19 · Score: 1

I think it's hilarious how, on their about/users page, PostgreSQL have changed the meaning behind the LAMP acronym to Linux/Apache/Middleware(Perl,PHP,Python,Ruby)/Post greSQL. The Ruby folks should be happy, it solves the LAMP/R problem and doesn't leave them out like LAPP would.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jrockway · 2006-02-15 10:18 · Score: 1

This means that IE needs to be open sourced if it accesses a GPL'd webserver.

--
My other car is first.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 10:46 · Score: 1

Yeah, that was creative :)

Although, the acronym still doesn't work all that well. Many serious postgresql users use a platform other than Linux. FreeBSD as well as a lot of the other UNIXes are popular. I believe one of the developers actually prefers HPUX. There must be some kind of reason, but I don't know what it is.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by jbolden · 2006-02-15 13:45 · Score: 1

No because IE works with a variety of webservers and isn't just dependent on that one. Reread my post.
Re:Taking a look at Diversity? by rthille · 2006-02-15 18:05 · Score: 1

Well, it may not be an issue for the MySQL developers, but it would be an issue for a company which directly uses BDB, or one which wants to ship MySQL integrated with BDB on the install CD for their product...

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jadavis · 2006-02-14 13:52 · Score: 5, Interesting

Oracle now owns two MySQL backend products. First InnoDB, which was their primary transaction-supporting backend, and now BerkeleyDB. Now, in order for MySQL AB to license MySQL database commercially, they need Oracle's permission (that is, if they want basic database features like atomic transactions).

And if you don't get a commercial license from MySQL AB, you can't link the mysql client library to a non-GPL application. That means, if you have a non-GPL application and you want to add support for MySQL, you are now dependent on Oracle.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2006-02-14 14:53 · Score: 1

> And if you don't get a commercial license from MySQL AB, you can't link the mysql client library > to a non-GPL application.
Sure you can, you just can't distribute it.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by QuantumG · 2006-02-14 15:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

Call me crazy, but isn't it trivial to write your own client lib? I mean, looking at the source code here, it appears to just be a wrapper that opens a socket (tcp or unix), writes your plain text SQL request to it and reads back the response. I can remember someone asking me to add mySQL support to an app about 6 years ago and I didn't even use the client lib cause I didn't think anyone would need a library for something that simple.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jadavis · 2006-02-14 15:21 · Score: 1

That's a pretty strong restriction, considering that organizations usually want to deploy many copies of an application, even if they are only using it internally. Particularly a database driven application.

You can also split hairs over whether you can use an interpreted language that has the library built-in or something. I think the standard is that if you depend on that specific code being there (i.e. the MySQL library), then it counts as distribution. The point is, you are deep in lawyer-ville. Maybe you can sort these things out and stay on the right side of the letter of the law. But to me, having to be so careful doesn't sound like the spirit "free software".

Let's imagine a hypothetical alternative: A GPL database and LGPL client libraries. You put as many of the databases anywhere you want, and you link up the client library to whatever you want and put the resulting programs wherever you want, or sell them if you want. To me, that's easy and feels a lot more free. Or, take the GNU example: GNU gzip will happily provide it's output to either GNU tar or BSD tar. Again, feels like the spirit of free software.

Limiting the linking of a library to GPL applications may promote more GPL applications. But limiting the distribution of a client library limits interoperability. A client library is sort of like a standard more than like code, and GPLing it means only GPL applications get to see the standard.

[ if you weren't serious, I apologize ]

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by dickko · 2006-02-14 16:14 · Score: 1

That's a pretty strong restriction, considering that organizations usually want to deploy many copies of an application, even if they are only using it internally. Particularly a database driven application.

Deployment isn't the same as distribution. The GPL (as far as I am aware, haven't read it completely) says nothing about the deployment of an application within an organisation, it only restricts what happens when that organisation provides that application for others to use.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:18 · Score: 2, Insightful

That's a mighty fine line you're trying to draw. The way I understand it, the GPL kicks in anytime copyright law would, i.e., when you copy it and it's not covered by fair use. And copying windows 100 times in an office certainly isn't legally fair use.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by dickko · 2006-02-14 16:39 · Score: 2, Informative

The way I understand it, the GPL kicks in anytime copyright law would, i.e., when you copy it and it's not covered by fair use. And copying windows 100 times in an office certainly isn't legally fair use.

You can't copy windows 100 times because of a little item in the EULA:
1. GRANT OF LICENSE. Manufacturer grants you the following rights provided that you comply with all terms and conditions of this EULA: 1.1 Installation and use. You may install, use, access, display and run one copy of the SOFTWARE on the COMPUTER. The SOFTWARE may not be used by more than two (2) processors at any one time on the COMPUTER, unless a higher number is indicated on the COA.

You'll not see anything like the above in the GPL. In fact under "TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION":
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
The GPL is a "distribution" license (don't know if that is an official term, I've just seen it used here before), it doesn't care how you use the code, so long that any publicly available derivation includes access to the source code
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jadavis · 2006-02-14 17:14 · Score: 1

You can't copy windows 100 times because copyright law prevents you, and the license doesn't specifically allow you to. Copyright law means the default is no copying or distribution or whatever you want to call it.

The GPL only permits copying if you follow a bunch of rules, some of which are in section 2b (which you left out), which requires that, for any whole or derived work, you must make it available under the terms of the GPL.

So, you can only give it to people on a "need to have" basis and hope it doesn't get out as GPL software. But any employee can legally then take it and redistribute it under the GPL license, whether you like it or not. You can't use an NDA to prevent the GPLed code from being released (otherwise you could do that with anyone's GPL code, just offer it for sale with an NDA so they can't distribute). So, it's only safe if you are the entire organization, or if you have very loyal employees.

Again, not exactly "free". More like "free but living in fear".

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by dickko · 2006-02-14 17:30 · Score: 1

But any employee can legally then take it and redistribute it under the GPL license, whether you like it or not

Sorry to nitpick here, but wouldn't that count as someone from the company distributing the application? So yes, you would have to provide source if requested.

I stand by my argument, from my point of view the GPL says nothing about what happens behind closed doors in a company. The second an application is made publically available (by whatever means, as you point out) is when the GPL "kicks in".

I'm not entirely sure why I'm debating this to be honest, as I agree with what you said earlier (LPGL for client libraries makes life easier). I just wanted to point out the distribution != deployment thingy.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by Tony+Hoyle · 2006-02-14 19:18 · Score: 1

No you can't even link it.

GPL covers linking too (ignore the preamble - it lies).
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by Alioth · 2006-02-14 23:29 · Score: 1

The Sleepycat DB is BSD licensed, if I'm not mistaken.

MySQL AB can just fork BerkeleyDB and distribute it perfectly legally. They will now of course have to maintain their fork, but if you use BerkeleyDB as the back end, MySQL AB can continue to license their commercial product using BerkeleyDB. If Oracle think they now control MySQL AB, Oracle are clueless dolts who don't understand the BSD license.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jbolden · 2006-02-15 01:30 · Score: 1

Deployment is the same as distribution under copyright law. Making a copy is the key act. Copyright law by definition is the law that addresses what sorts of copies can be created and under what terms. And this applies to any act of coping including stuff like hard drive to ram.

Now you can argue (like the FSF does) that various internal distributions don't constitue a copy. The problem is what about external distributions. For example an employee takes your internal app gives it to a friend and that friend distributes it. You may not be able to stop that since the copy the friend got could be considred GPLed.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by scotch · 2006-02-15 02:49 · Score: 1

The Sleepycat DB is BSD licensed, if I'm not mistaken.

You are mistaken, if I'm not mistaken.

--
XML causes global warming.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by TheRaven64 · 2006-02-15 03:00 · Score: 1

The Sleepycat DB is BSD licensed, if I'm not mistaken.
You are indeed mistaken. The original BDB was BSD licensed, however Sleepycat's fork is only available under more restrictive licensing terms. If you use the Sleepycat Public License then you must release your code under an approved Open Source license. If you want to distribute an app that uses BDB without making it Open Source, then you must pay for a license. See their licensing page for more info.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:33 · Score: 1

I think what you're saying is at least in the spirit of the GPL, so I'll just concede this point until I'm more informed.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2006-02-15 06:42 · Score: 1

> That's a pretty strong restriction
I agree, just correcting the original poster.

Chump change to Oracle by jonsmirl · 2006-02-14 13:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

The price of these acquisitions is chump change for Oracle. My bet is that they are buying these companies to destroy them. Oracle does not want something like Mysql becoming a real threat to their DB business, so the tried and true solution is to kill the babies before they grow up. They will attempt to migrate what customers they can and then stop development on the acquired code bases. The acquired developers, if they stick around, will be put to work building migration tools.

Re:Chump change to Oracle by slashname3 · 2006-02-14 15:23 · Score: 1

Time to move on to postgresql. Actually, I did that a while back.
Re:Chump change to Oracle by MichaelSmith · 2006-02-14 21:18 · Score: 1

My bet is that they are buying these companies to destroy them
Its funny: I just got this from theonion.com:
Fatal error: Lost connection to MySQL server during query query: SELECT name, filename, throttle, bootstrap FROM system WHERE type = 'module' AND status = 1 AND bootstrap = 1 in /www/redesign.theonion.com/content/includes/databa se.mysql.inc on line 66

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Chump change to Oracle by killjoe · 2006-02-14 22:10 · Score: 1

Wouldn't oracle mode firebird or maxdb or ingres be a bigger threat to oracle them mysql?

What would killing mysql accomplish when ther are a plethora of great open source databases that are fully transactional, full featured and proven in some of the largest companies in the world?

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Chump change to Oracle by shaka · 2006-02-14 22:59 · Score: 1

What would killing mysql accomplish when ther are a plethora of great open source databases that are fully transactional, full featured and proven in some of the largest companies in the world?

You keep saying that, and I agree with you. However, now that Oracle actually has bought Sleepycat and Innobase, why do you think they've done that, if not to hurt MySQL? I can't see any other plausible reason. This is Larry Ellison we're talking about, he's not famous for giving stuff away.

--
:wq!
Re:Chump change to Oracle by TheRaven64 · 2006-02-15 03:03 · Score: 1

MySQL has mindshare. Even on Slashdot, where people really ought to know better, it is common to see people advocating MySQL in spite of the availability of better (and more Free) alternatives. People here SQL Database, and they think MySQL. Then, maybe, they think Oracle. Eliminate MySQL, and people start thinking Oracle a lot more.
That's the theory, at least.

--
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Re:Chump change to Oracle by Ian.Waring · 2006-02-15 05:45 · Score: 1

Tell me if my facts are wrong, but I reckon Oracle have an installed base of 9,000 companies using Oracle on Linux. MySQL deloy at the rate of 40,000 per *day*.
To date, all the big DB vendors try clutching straws; Oracle themselves define market share as "license revenue", make out that they're slugging it out for dominance with DB2, and say that only 10% of MySQL deployments are in mission-critical apps. Follow the numbers, and you still see MySQL lapping Oracle's installed base in the "mission critical" space every 3 days.
Hence MySQL are already everywhere and starting to do a traditional market discontinuity. Virtually all the nice open source tools these days go MySQL first (PHP, Ruby on Rails among them). Oracle's defence is either to move to services... or to bully their way into the low end. I wonder whether they're really trying to buy MySQL.
Ian W.
Re:Chump change to Oracle by killjoe · 2006-02-15 07:49 · Score: 1

"However, now that Oracle actually has bought Sleepycat and Innobase, why do you think they've done that, if not to hurt MySQL? "

Because it doesn't hurt mysql, it hasn't hurt mysql, and it won't hurt mysql because mysql also has maxdb AND it can continue to use the innodb and berkley engines because they are open source.

Where do you get the idea that mysql will not be able to use those engines?

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Chump change to Oracle by shaka · 2006-02-15 09:01 · Score: 1

Because it doesn't hurt mysql, it hasn't hurt mysql, and it won't hurt mysql because mysql also has maxdb AND it can continue to use the innodb and berkley engines because they are open source.

It won't hurt MySQL the database (at least not that much). However, it could hurt MySQL AB, the company, a lot. They sell pretty expensive licenses to companies that wish to link against MySQL the database while not releasing their own code under the GPL. You know, the whole dual-licensing thing?

IF Oracle decides not to provide BDB/InnoDB under a commercial license, but only as GPL, MySQL cannot sell licenses anymore. They will have to live off support only (or alms).

And when it comes to MaxDB: Stop pretending like it won't be a problem for MySQL's many paying, commercial customers to switch to an entirely different DB. And while they're at it, why would they choose Max instead of any of the other alternatives you have listed in this thread? Again, it hurts MySQL AB.

Where do you get the idea that mysql will not be able to use those engines?

Again, MySQL can use them, but MySQL AB, potentially, can't get a license.

--
:wq!

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by Snowhare · 2006-02-14 13:55 · Score: 3, Informative

BDB is used as a backend engine in MySQL. It is one of the two best backends - the other being InnoDB. Oddly enough, Oracle bought InnoDB about 3 months ago.

Sense a pattern?

Obviously... by Chilluhm · 2006-02-14 13:55 · Score: 0, Flamebait

...another sign that the apocalypse is upon us.

--
My sig sags.

Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by Andy+Tai · 2006-02-14 14:00 · Score: 4, Interesting

Oracle may have screwed up the ability of MySQL to license the proprietary version of their database and may even killed MySQL's primary revenue stream, but they cannot remove MySQL, Berkeley DB or innobase from the market. Maybe MySQL will adapt, or someone will pick up the MySQL business, but the Free databases will continue to gain on Oracle. Oracle's nightmare cannot go away.

--
Free Software: the software by the people, of the people and for the people. Develop! Share! Enhance! Enjoy!

Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by nikoftime · 2006-02-14 14:13 · Score: 2, Interesting

They can't kill off the GPLed MySQL, but they can kill off the **commercial version** by purchasing the backend products and then reducing or eliminating their development. This means that a company or third party vendor that wanted to develop an app using MySQL would not be able to use the commercial version of MySQL in an effective way (since they would now be tied to Oracle, and Oracle's development whims of development for the MySQL backend products like InnoDB and BDB), and they also cannot use the GPLed MySQL unless they want to GPL their own application.

Oracle thus makes it sensible for any vendor who doesn't want to be tied to an rapidly deprecating platform to use the Oracle database.
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by ivoras · 2006-02-14 14:20 · Score: 1

What MySQL *really* needs is a nice BSD-licensed connector/driver/client library compatible with existing solutions for popular languages such as PHP, Perl, Python, Java & others.

--
-- Sig down
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 14:24 · Score: 1

Or, you know, PostgreSQL (http://www.postgresql.org/) which is a far better database than MySQL by most measures, and much closer to Oracle in terms of features and performance (and even PL/SQL compatibility to a limited extent in the form of PL/PGSQL).

--
LL
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by symbolic · 2006-02-14 18:02 · Score: 1

After thinking about this, it makes me wonder that if a company purchases (assuming it was purchased) a product from a third party which it grows to rely so heavily upon, maybe there ought to be some kind of code escrow, so that if the company ever sells out, especially to a competitor, the original purchasor (or licensor), which is MYSQL in this case, will be covered.
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 20:00 · Score: 0

Everyone is going on about Oracle destroying MySQL. But if these backend companies are worth money, why not just keep them around? This way, MySQL can keep nibbling on Oracle's market at the low end, but ends up giving a good part of their profits to Oracle-owned companies. It's a win-win situation for Oracle.
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by ckaminski · 2006-02-15 08:59 · Score: 1

This happens all the time, and with properly written contracts is a non-issue. Someone at MySQL AB screwed up, and now their corporate customers have to pay the penalty (assuming Oracle gets aggressive with MySQL AB).
Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL by icepick72 · 2006-02-15 16:13 · Score: 1

but the Free databases will continue to gain on Oracle. Oracle's nightmare cannot go away.
Courageous, but unfortunately it's a two-way street. Likewise Open Source's nightmare cannot go away because they are the companies with huge resources at their disposal, and will continue to make acquisitions.

Funding baby, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:07 · Score: 0

Don't you love the OSS cycle? OSS product picks up market share, commercial competitor pays buckets to shut it down ... OSS product uses money to fork off a better product.

Us westeners think in such a wrong way. Japanese businesses think in years, westeners think in quarters. I reckon the real value here is the huge injection of cash into database R&D, from a respected commercial source. And don't forget! Oracle make a good database engine.

Re:Funding baby, here we come! by QuantumG · 2006-02-14 14:52 · Score: 1

westeners think?

Seriously, when was the last time you heard a westener say "how is this good for the company?" without snickering?

--
How we know is more important than what we know.
Re:Funding baby, here we come! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:29 · Score: 0

Fairly often, considering I run my own company.
Re:Funding baby, here we come! by QuantumG · 2006-02-14 17:31 · Score: 1

Hehehe, exactly my point. Thanks.

--
How we know is more important than what we know.

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:09 · Score: 0

Are you seriously trying to say that Oracle is in competition with MySQL? Even the MySQL developers wouldn't say that with a straight face. MySQL is a toy database.

How will this affect BDB-using projects? by TheBracket · 2006-02-14 14:09 · Score: 2, Interesting

I wonder how this will affect other projects using the BDB back-end (for example, OpenLDAP and Subversion). I imagine Oracle can't pull the source for already open versions, and it might be possible for a free fork to emerge if it is needed - but it could put a cloud over those projects while they arrange alternative back-ends.

--
Lead developer, http://wisptools.net

Re:How will this affect BDB-using projects? by jrockway · 2006-02-14 14:25 · Score: 2, Informative

Subversion was moving away from BDB in favor of fsfs anyway. The fact of the matter, though, is that BDB has all the features OpenLDAP and Subversion need... so even if SleepyCat doesn't release any more updates it doesn't really mean much to the individual projects. They can fork BDB and life will move on.

--
My other car is first.
Re:How will this affect BDB-using projects? by clintcan · 2006-02-14 20:49 · Score: 1

Well, I do think the other projects that depend on it will just continue to move on using the older versions of BDB. Projects that use BDB are: Openoffice/Staroffice Apache OpenLDAP rpm Moveable Type Linux, BSDs, etc. and so on... In fact BDB is actually very integrated into distros and BSDs... As you can see, only a small part of MYSQL use BDB, In fact, I don't use BDB in my web apps.
Re:How will this affect BDB-using projects? by ckaminski · 2006-02-15 09:04 · Score: 1

Subversion did that, from what I gather for two reasons:

1. Users of CVS balked at the thought of having a database-backed version-control system,
2. The possibility of the BDB versions that Apache and Svn were built against being different were high, impacting the svn_davfs module.

Let's say it proved more annoying to me, for sure. I'm using BDB 4.3 with SVN now, but I have to migrate my server soon, and it will be to fsfs to simply avoid this problem going forward. It's bad enough having to dump/load the svn database periodically (when schema updates warrant, which has been very rare), it's bad enough having BDB version incompatibilities among my servers.

Challenge for Open Source by cyberjessy · 2006-02-14 14:14 · Score: 5, Interesting

This could become one of the biggest challenges for Open Source in the years to come. The biggies could but these companies (often run by a handful of good men) for a small sum; and then change the way they function. Of course the old source will still be available, but the guys who know the intricacies will no longer be working on it. Bug fixes might be late, new features may never come. Many of the old users will leave, some stay hoping for the best. All the roadmaps vanish. Until someone picks up the ashes and starts again. Rebirth.

I am not sure how fair it will be to ask any company/people to not take a multi-MILLION dollar offer, so that they would remain FREE.

You can mod this funny, 'cause after I finished writing it feels like a para from MadMax.

--
Life is just a conviction.

Re:Challenge for Open Source by Eivind+Eklund · 2006-02-14 21:48 · Score: 1

There's an easy solution to this: Don't use company-based open source software. This means don't use MySQL, use PostgreSQL, don't use Red Hat or SuSE, use Debian or *BSD, etc.
I already do this, not particularly because I'm afraid of companies going away, just because I've found those solutions to be better for me. They've got user interfaces that are harder to learn - yet I find them better (more stable and more capable) when I've learned them.
Eivind.

--
Doubting the existence of evolution is like doubting the existence of China: It just shows that you're uninformed.
Re:Challenge for Open Source by archen · 2006-02-15 05:25 · Score: 1

The biggest problem here is that it's a challenge that we haven't actually seen the entire cycle yet. It's hard to say we should jump ship now, when we don't know what the intentions of the company are, nor how things will be handled, nor the final outcome. I think once we see a company actually bought out and their software trashed and how things are picked up, the open source community will have a better benchmark on when they should fork and do it themselves. I'd like to say the OS community is quick and agile, but more often than not too many people end up fence sitters and nothing happens. Just look at how long it took to fork X11 to get things moving again.

I don't think we're going to see that here unfortunatly, because there are other options and way too many players. I think now people need to look at how Oracle is going to attempt to cut off Postgresql, because that's going to be the next logical target over time, unless MySQL manages to pull it together.

racing home ASAP by Flunitrazepam · 2006-02-14 14:18 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Dear god what Phluffy ever do to Oracle?

--
1) Your analysis is based on bad assumptions so your result is way off. 2) You're a sick bastard for fucking a horse.

Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2006-02-14 14:19 · Score: 2, Insightful

I get the impression that Oracle is just doing this to screw with MySQL. As many know, MySQL gives you a choice of back end data stores. You can go with MAX (now owned by Oracle), or you can go with Berkeley DB (now owned by Oracle).

As the developer of an application that uses Berkeley DB for all of its data stores, I am more than a little concerned about this. Does Oracle see any actual value in Sleepycat, or are they just doing this to shut them down?

--
Tired of FB/Google censorship? Visit UNCENSORED!

Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by HermanAB · 2006-02-14 14:47 · Score: 1

Hi Mr Foobar - maybe it is time to save a copy of the BDB source code, so you can fork it if needed. As is, BDB has all the features Citadel needs, so it doesn't matter if your fork stagnates.

--
Oh well, what the hell...
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 15:14 · Score: 1

It's perhaps more of a reason to use a database server like MySQL which has lots of storage engines and can develop or integrate more as necessary to deal with such business changes. No reason to write to only MySQL either.
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by PCM2 · 2006-02-14 17:29 · Score: 1

Watch for an announcement by SAP that they've bought or are partnering with another fringe DB player. My money's on Interbase.
But SAP used to have SAP DB, only they got rid of it. (That is, they sold it to MySQL.) Buying another one from somebody else would be quite an about-face.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by Archtech · 2006-02-14 19:55 · Score: 1

Yes indeed, Oracle has prudently given itself some control over MySQL's operations. And why did it get that opportunity? Money. You have to admit that events like this highlight the strengths of Richard Stallman's policy. In his world of free software, there is no money for operators like Oracle to get hold of. They can't exert leverage because there are no levers.

On the other hand, the more commercial OSS distributors get - the more money they have at stake - the more vulnerable they become to everyday financial manipulation. If you make yourself a Monopoly token, don't be surprised when someone picks you up and starts moving you around.

--
I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 20:16 · Score: 1

Just two days ago MySQL announced that several companies, including SAP, Intel and Red Hat, had provided US$18.5 million in funding for MySQL. That's long after the InnoDB acquisition and well after the rumors of Oracle buying Sleepycat. Seems really unlikely that they would do that if they weren't confident that MySQL was in a good position anyway.

If you think MySQL is only for the low end you've probably been reading too many posts from those touting a certain other open source database who pop up and criticise MySQL whenever it's in the news. :)
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by MichaelSmith · 2006-02-14 20:40 · Score: 1

As the developer of an application that uses Berkeley DB for all of its data stores, I am more than a little concerned about this.
I remember when Oracle bought RDB from DEC in the 90's. The next version of RDB became Oracle at 10 times the price.

--
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Re:Are they just trying to derail MySQL? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 00:12 · Score: 0

Actually SAP DB is now called MAXDB and is supported and distributed under dual license (both open source and closed) by MySQL. Most of the SAP solutions like ERP or the NetWeaver J2EE engine work fine on MAXDB. MAXDB is a fine database, that just did not get too much publicity.

Cutting MySQL's other leg off? by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 14:19 · Score: 3, Insightful

This seems like it fits with their other purchases if their strategy is to kill of the commercial incarnation of MySQL. First the InnoDB purchase threatened MySQL's commercial business being the primary transaction based backend, and now BDB too is threatened.

Can MySQL license the code (and any patents covering it) to continue commercial MySQL sales/support?

--
LL

Re:Cutting MySQL's other leg off? by Alioth · 2006-02-14 23:33 · Score: 1

BDB is BSD licensed. MySQL can still supply BDB as part of their commercial product and there ain't anything 'Orrible can do about it. If MySQL is really worried, they can fork the current BSD licensed BDB and maintain it themselves.

--
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by Snowhare · 2006-02-14 14:20 · Score: 5, Interesting

Do a Google groupd search for MySQL. Do a second one for Oracle.

Surprise! MySQL has 75% as many messages about it as Oracle does.

They damn well are competition. They are eating Oracle's entry market. Not everyone needs a super-duper database. A good enough free database trumps a extremely overpriced 'perfect' one in most applications.

What competitors does Oracle have? by Savage-Rabbit · 2006-02-14 14:20 · Score: 1

Uhhh... it looks to me like they are purchasing their competition to either insure it isn't developed to the point that it can be a serious threat to their own database product or to quietly change it so much that it's useless and kill the project. Wouldn't be the first time this has happened...

I seem to remember reading that their only serious competitor for the high end database market is DB2/IBM with Microsoft offering a low end alternative. As far as I know they haven't bought out IBM or Microsoft yet and they haven't gone after the OSS alternatives: Postgres, Firebird, Mysql etc. either so I don't think that is has alot to do with suffocating competitors. Mostly Oracle has been buying up all sorts of Middle ware, SSO/Identity Management and other specialist firms with the aim of offering a one-stop-shop platform independent middleware solution for medium to large corporate customers. They are buying expertise and functionality they need but don't have and want to integrate it into their solution packages.

--
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow

Re:What competitors does Oracle have? by einhverfr · 2006-02-14 20:27 · Score: 1

Why buy Innobase *and* Sleepycat if not to smother MySQL?

Unlike DB2 or MS, MySQL, PostgreSQL, and Firebird do threaten Oracle's ability to command high licensing fees per processing unit.

I am guessing that they have not gone after PostgreSQL or Firebird because there are no obvious targets there. However, if they start buying Red Hat, PostgreSQL Inc, Affilias, Green Plum, or SRA Powergres, I will start getting somewhat concerned.

For PostgreSQL, the purchase of RedHat (which employs Tom Lane) might be the most devastating. But Tom could, I suppose, be replaced.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

Raw Power by the+eric+conspiracy · 2006-02-14 14:23 · Score: 2, Funny

Embrace
Extinguish
????
Profit!!!

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by TheDugong · 2006-02-14 14:36 · Score: 1

"Are you seriously trying to say that Oracle is in competition with MySQL?" Yep. I had a customer who currently uses Oracle ask me about our support for using OSS databases (i.e. postgres & MySQL) with one of our products only yesterday (we do not support them at present but enough customer ask...).

am I the only one? by mseidl · 2006-02-14 14:40 · Score: 0, Offtopic

Smelly cat, smelly cat, why are they buying you?

Re:am I the only one? by larry+bagina · 2006-02-14 16:34 · Score: 1

looks like you've got no Friends.
(Sorry, I had to).

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

PotgreSQL... by curious.corn · 2006-02-14 14:41 · Score: 4, Interesting

... dodge this. Really folks, except for the nifty LAMP acronym what is it that keeps MySQL afloat? There's no reason not to go with PostgreSQL, a neat, cool and scary DBMS. If only those phpBB look alike script packs didn't insist hardcoding MySQL dialects in their code this would be a non story, it's that simple. It's like insisting on using VB just because everyone else does... and PostgreSQL documentation is good, so there's no "I can't figure it out" excuse.

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan

Re:PotgreSQL... by SwashbucklingCowboy · 2006-02-14 14:50 · Score: 1

> except for the nifty LAMP acronym what is it that keeps MySQL afloat?
Until recently it was support. Support's a big deal for many companies - they want a throat to choke as the saying goes...
Re:PotgreSQL... by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 15:27 · Score: 1

There is no shortage of companies supporting PostgreSQL: http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_sup port_northamerica

Besides, who would you trust not to disappear next week, MySQL AB, or say, Sun?

--
LL
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:35 · Score: 0

Um, Sun isn't in the list that you linked to.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-14 16:13 · Score: 1, Flamebait

What's keeping MySQL afloat? Hmmm... Incredible speed? Easy setup and administration? Handy SQL extensions? Enterprise features for those who want them and not for those who don't? These things matter, and PostgreSQL, for all that it is an impressive database, does not have them.
Re:PotgreSQL... by LLuthor · 2006-02-14 16:22 · Score: 1

I think he/she was referring to http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/18/065 6204&tid=102&tid=221&tid=218

--
LL
Re:PotgreSQL... by allanw · 2006-02-14 16:36 · Score: 1

Handy SQL extensions?

Like being forced to write C/C++ to make your own functions? That's more handy than PostgreSQL allowing you perl, python, php, tcl, sql, pgsql, just to name a few? How about triggers in those languages? Or aggregates? How about custom types? User-defined operators?

I haven't been keeping up with MySQL lately so please tell me if a few things I've mentioned are already implemented in the latest version.

And what enteprise features are you talking about?
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:54 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's keeping MySQL afloat? Hmmm... Incredible speed?
Guess it depends how you use your database. MySQL tanks under any kind of concurrent load. MySQL eats flaming death with complicated queries. Neither does MySQL support features such as procedural languages, custom aggregates, bit-mapped indexes or tablespaces. In other words, it's either a really slow filesystem with a few extra features spooged on, or a reasonably quick toy database that's about the same speed as postgres, as long as you don't go trying to do something that would require a real database.
Easy setup and administration?
Yeah, postgres is really hard to setup.
apt-get install postgresql
sudo su - postgres
createuser noob
^D
createdb its_just_not_that_tricky
Or you could just download and install one of the gui tools if command lines scare you.
Handy SQL extensions?
Oh, you mean like how there aren't any procedural languages supported? You know, the ones that would obviate the need for hackish extensions that only half solve a given problem? Or perhaps you're talking about all the dumb foot cannons that MySQL AB thought was clever?
Enterprise features for those who want them and not for those who don't?
Like... replication? Oh wait, that's a postgres feature that MySQL hasn't even dreamed of supporting. MySQL only just recently figured out what a transaction is a couple of years ago. They still haven't figured out NULL. I'm not sure exactly what enterprise features you're refering to, but then I don't think you are either since MySQL hasn't got any. Which is probably why nobody uses MySQL in enterprise environments whereas Postgres a non-trivial chunk of the internet.
Re:PotgreSQL... by dmadole · 2006-02-14 17:10 · Score: 2, Insightful

What's keeping MySQL afloat? Hmmm... Incredible speed? Easy setup and administration? Handy SQL extensions? Enterprise features for those who want them and not for those who don't? These things matter, and PostgreSQL, for all that it is an impressive database, does not have them.

Not to mention built-in replication that you can setup in five minutes and just works. Last I looked, which wasn't too long ago, getting PostgreSQL replication working is a real mess involving other products.

I used to use PostgreSQL extensively but the replication situation just killed me.
Re:PotgreSQL... by slavemowgli · 2006-02-14 18:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

Huh? Did you actually try PostgreSQL? I'll give you "SQL extensions", although I wouldn't call them handy myself (standards are there for a reason; proprietary extensions that lock you in to a single vendor should be avoided), but "easy setup and administration" and "incredible speed" are definitely things I'd say PostgreSQL has more of than MySQL.

And yes, I've worked with both (not to mention Oracle, too).

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:PotgreSQL... by slavemowgli · 2006-02-14 18:32 · Score: 1

Maybe it's because all those PotgreSQL developers spend more time smoking some ganja than promoting their database. ;)

(It's a joke, based on the fact that there's a funny typo in your subject line, so laugh already. Please?)

--
quidquid latine dictum sit altum videtur.
Re:PotgreSQL... by MemoryDragon · 2006-02-14 18:54 · Score: 1

Speed becomes lousier than in most other db systems once you move away from I read a single table without transactions situation. Easy to administer, yes, but the others have caught up, pgAdmin3 is a very good tool as well. Enterprise features, which ones, hosing the repo at serious loads (MySQL is known for that) Postgres is known for its stability. Do a join over 8 transactional tables some of them huge in MySQL and come back talking about speed and enterprise features, this is a typical situation where you need something more decent where MySQL simply falls flat on its face!
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 18:56 · Score: 0

Which is probably why nobody uses MySQL in enterprise environments

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA, you just made my day. Do you honestly believe that? You obviously have never been in an enterprise environment.
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 19:40 · Score: 0

What's keeping MySQL afloat? Hmmm... Incredible speed? Easy setup and administration? Handy SQL extensions? Enterprise features for those who want them and not for those who don't? These things matter, and PostgreSQL, for all that it is an impressive database, does not have them.

Don't forget "buggy piece of crap that doesn't implement standard SQL features or even attempt to provide real data integrity". MySQL is miles ahead on that one.
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 19:57 · Score: 0

You're a troll. PostgreSQL has all this and more (you can even develop stored database procedures in PHP). Enterprise features? They are there (funded by companies such as Fujitsu who care about enterprise). Ease of administration? Compare how you add an user to mysql vs. pgsql.

Visit http://www.postgresql.org/ for more.
Re:PotgreSQL... by SolitaryMan · 2006-02-14 20:03 · Score: 1

...Enterprise features...

Until this, your post was pretty insightful.

--
May Peace Prevail On Earth
Re:PotgreSQL... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 20:26 · Score: 1

Do tell me more about "hosing the repo at serious loads". Remember I do use MySQL at serious loads for one of the top few sites in the world, with replication. My experience is that it doesn't get hosed at serious loads but instead just keeps on working and getting the job done.

MediaWiki is also not a single table application without transactions. Rather it's multiple tables and Wikipedia does a billion queries per day on five database servers with a master and four slaves and some 400GB of data on each of those servers.

Do you know of even one PostgreSQL site which is doing a billion queries per day?
Re:PotgreSQL... by Jamesday · 2006-02-14 20:28 · Score: 1

Last I looked the choice was between GPL (not BSD) replication or expensive proprietary(!) replication. Niether of them capable of the 400 plus server replication setups I've seen used with MySQL.
Re:PotgreSQL... by curious.corn · 2006-02-14 21:09 · Score: 1

Oh man, you're so right! ;-)

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:PotgreSQL... by dodobh · 2006-02-14 21:16 · Score: 1

Actually, it takes all of 10 minutes to get replication working reliably.

Try this: link for more information, howtos and scripts to assist you in setting up replication.

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:PotgreSQL... by 10Ghz · 2006-02-15 01:16 · Score: 1

Honestly, sometimes I feel that PostgreSQL-users are just as bad as Mac-users are. Every single time there is a discussion that is somehow related to MySQL, Postgre-guys come out from their caves and start their "Seriously, why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL instead?". Every... single... fucking... time. Maybe they just prefer MySQL? Maybe MySQL does what they want it to do? So you use PostgreSQL. Good for you! Does that mean that rest of the world should be doing the same thing?

If I were in to databases I would propably use MySQL, for the sole reason to annoy those PostgreSQL-fanatics.

Seriously: why don't you and rest of your kind just let others choose and use software that suits them. I really fail to see the reason for this PostgreSQL-jihad. If you like it, go right ahead and use it. And allow others use whatever database they want to use, even if they prefer MySQL. It really is that simple.

I bet the real reason here is that fact that those PostgreSQL-guys feel annoyed because MySQL steals their thnder or something.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:PotgreSQL... by GooberToo · 2006-02-15 01:41 · Score: 1

You've stepped in it now! It's only a matter of time before a MySQL zealot, preaching Wikipedia as a reference, which is something like 98% read only, containing a few ....what million?...records, is a serious database. Which proves how MySQL is the king of RDBMS. Never mind that this is MySQL's sole strength...it's sweet spot... In the meantime, we'll ignore the fact that anyone that's done much with large and complex databases are laughing...but that's a different matter.

You've been warned! Prepare to duck!
Re:PotgreSQL... by GooberToo · 2006-02-15 01:43 · Score: 1

It turns out he was both, having a wet dream and dreaming of another RDBMS.

Move along...nothing to see here...move along...
Re:PotgreSQL... by GooberToo · 2006-02-15 01:58 · Score: 2, Insightful

You've stepped in it now! It's only a matter of time before a MySQL zealot, preaching Wikipedia as a reference, which is something like 98% read only, containing a few ....what million?...records, is a serious database. Which proves how MySQL is the king of RDBMS. Never mind that this is MySQL's sole strength...it's sweet spot... In the meantime, we'll ignore the fact that anyone that's done much with large and complex databases are laughing...but that's a different matter.

You've been warned! Prepare to duck!

Frankly, MySQL users are justifiably tired of being reminded that they picked an overhyped dog of an RDBMS and they will do just abou anything to assure their egos remain unbruised. It's not like you can really blame them. MySQL, as a company, has spread so much complete BS about PostgreSQL and even more BS about how great MySQL is, it's hard to debate the topic. You can always tell when someone is spewing the MySQL party line because it's always the same misinformation and complete BS.

Here is a list of the common party BS lines:
o PostgreSQL does not have replication. This is of course false. In fact, you have your ready choice of replication options; including commerically supported implementations.

o Replication for PostgreSQL is complicated, inflexible, and painful to set up. This is, of course false. Replication can be set up in about 10-20 minutes, depending on your skillset and capabilities.

o PostgreSQL is slow. This is of course false. Having said that, PostgreSQL may not be the fastest tool for every solution but it scales wonderfully. PostgreSQL's query optimizer, compared to MySQL's, is lasers versus clubs.

o PostgreSQL is not stable. This is of course, false. This may of been true a decade ago. Realistically, even crappy biased (in MySQL's favor) tests which have attempted to compare the two are often unable to complete their tests with MySQL because it crashes or simply becomes completely unresponsive. MySQL is both unstable and scales poorly compared to just about any other well established RDBMS.

o PostgreSQL is lacking key SQL features like MySQL. This is, of course, completely false! It is MySQL which is lacking many ANSI SQL features. In fact, like most of proprietary SQL vendors, they make every attempt to push their own lock-in extentions rather than support standard ANSI SQL.

o Oh, let's not forget the classic... I've seen a website which is mostly read only run via MySQL, therefore, it's the best RDBMS ever created!

This could go on and on and on...but you get the point.

Summary:
MySQL is used by the ignorant masses swayed by marketing hype and lies propagated by MySQL.
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 02:04 · Score: 0

You're obviously confused. He meas, no responsible person will use MySQL for any Enterprise feature. This is not to say that you won't find the likes of Access and MySQL (Access on steriods) used within. The key difference, Access and MySQL are primarily used at the department level to support the Enterprise; which is on the same as the Enterprise running on MySQL or Access.
Re:PotgreSQL... by curious.corn · 2006-02-15 02:33 · Score: 2, Insightful

- Because MySQL fanboys consistently tout their favourite DBMS praising it for it's supposedly enterprise goodness.
- Because MySQL web hosting is everywhere despite it's bugs, it's lack of features, it's violation of elementary SQL statement standards thus frustrating and bogging me down fiddling with the schema while I could do better things. Think MSIE HTML bastardization.
- Because often I had to put up with it because some CMS, portal platform I wished to deploy has this damned DBMS hardcoded rather that wrapped in a sane Object to ODBC/SQLdialect mapping
- Because all these pains in the ass happen because the common understanding is that since MySQL is the M in LAMP everyone should and will use it, just like sites designed and optimized around MSIE gaping bugs. ... and by the way, I'm a Mac user

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:PotgreSQL... by dmadole · 2006-02-15 02:51 · Score: 1

Thanks for the good information. Like I said, though, when it's built-in and just works, let me know.

Statements like the following (and other various schema change warnings) on the wiki are not encouraging:

Slony-I does not allow you to add a table to a replication set that is already being replicated.

With MySQL replication, I never need to worry about things like this. Everything just works. All my table creates, alters, etc., just replicate like everything else, as do creating database users, grants, even creating entire databases.
Re:PotgreSQL... by ukpyr · 2006-02-15 02:58 · Score: 1

Tell me about it. You'd think all these people writing these (pretty nice, in some cases) software packages would care about database agnosticism. I *HAVE* to run a mysql database because some of the stupid junk we didn't have the personpower to write "needs" mysql. Utter sillyness.

I've not been in a position to write and release code as opensource but if I were to put effort into a product I thought people could utilize, I'd make darn sure they could use whatever 'helper' software they needed/wanted to.
Re:PotgreSQL... by dodobh · 2006-02-15 03:00 · Score: 1

It currently just works. The whole replication set issue is pretty much moot, because you can build another one trivially.

And DDL _is_ rare for well designed database applications.

--
I can throw myself at the ground, and miss.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 03:49 · Score: 1

If you haven't been keeping up with MySQL, why are you responding at all? It has stored procedures and triggers. It doesn't have custom-types, and personally I'm glad that it doesn't after my experiences with those.

Enterprise features? Distributed transactions, replication. Choice of table-types is a nice feature that lets you trade transactions and constraints for speed on a read-only reporting database.

I'm not against PostgreSQL -- it's a great database. It just doesn't actually have everything MySQL does.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 03:52 · Score: 1

Yes, I've used Pg. The setup is just not as simple. It's powerful and flexible, which is great, but not for everyone.

MySQL is clearly faster at simple selects, which is what most web apps do most of the time. Maybe it's because of the result cache, or the ability to use simpler table types when you choose to, but whatever it is, it's faster. I'm not saying Pg is slow, just that MySQL has really impressive speed.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 03:54 · Score: 1

Distributed transactions? Replication? Most people don't need these features, or stored procs or views for that matter.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 04:03 · Score: 1

The InnoDB engine handles transactions across multiple tables with no trouble. The real speed advantage though is for simple selects, like the ones that make up most of the work in web applications. Enterprise features include distributed transactions, replication, data archiving, etc.
Re:PotgreSQL... by Nohea · 2006-02-15 05:17 · Score: 2, Informative

I think most PostgreSQL users checked out MySQL in the late 90's, and read the MySQL docs, to see if referential integrity was supported (i know i did).

Not only did they say it was not supported, but that it would be stupid to implement it in the database, and that application developers should write their own code to do constraints.

Well, the message was pretty clear to me - never give MySQL another consideration. Unless you want to do repetitive coding the rest of your life.

http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=104 831&cid=8925689
http://sunsite.univie.ac.at/textbooks/mysql/manual .html#Broken_Foreign_KEY
Re:PotgreSQL... by asdfghjklqwertyuiop · 2006-02-15 06:00 · Score: 1

Yes, I've used Pg. The setup is just not as simple.

You keep saying that. Can you specificly explain exactly what you mean? Installing postgres has been a matter of './configure && make && make install' for years now. Once its installed, su to the postgres user, type 'psql template1' and create your users/databases. What else do you want...
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 06:04 · Score: 0

when it's built-in and just works, let me know.
There is more than one replication system available for Postgres, much like there is more than one table-type supported by MySQL. Many people don't want replication for their database, so why build it in?
Statements like the following (and other various schema change warnings) on the wiki are not encouraging:
Slony-I does not allow you to add a table to a replication set that is already being replicated.

You can however create another set and, assuming your replicating off the same source, merge the two.
An implication of the above is that a repication cluster may have multiple sets, and that these sets may have different origins. This allows some really neat solutions to a tricky class of problems.
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 06:57 · Score: 0

standards are there for a reason; proprietary extensions that lock you in to a single vendor should be avoided
I mostly agree with the above, but would amend it to "avoided except where necessary for performance reasons". The alternative is designing to the lowest common denominator, which is not sufficient when you're trying to build a non-trivial application.
Re:PotgreSQL... by allanw · 2006-02-15 07:34 · Score: 1

I meant stored procedures and triggers in languages other than C/C++.
Re:PotgreSQL... by platypus · 2006-02-15 07:47 · Score: 1

Summary:
MySQL is used by the ignorant masses swayed by marketing hype and lies

Ah!
That's the reason Oracle is buying its way into Mysql land, they are going after
their customer base!
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 08:26 · Score: 1

So did I. MySQL has stored procedures and triggers in the same SQL:2003 syntax that DB2 uses.
Re:PotgreSQL... by consumer · 2006-02-15 08:28 · Score: 1

Setting up user authentication and granting rights is more complicated in Pg. The last time I did it, I had to dig through the RPM for instructions on how it was set up, since the on-line docs can't be sure which way it was done on your local machine. MySQL's user auth system is much less flexible, but also very easy to get going.
Re:PotgreSQL... by GooberToo · 2006-02-15 09:52 · Score: 1

That was my first impression when I heard about it. MySQL, like MS, has so-so technology but excellent marketing. As such, they have mind share. It's always a good move for one company to purchase another company that has pre-existing market and mind share. Especially if that same company has been erroding your existing base with said shares.
Re:PotgreSQL... by 10Ghz · 2006-02-15 20:02 · Score: 0, Flamebait

- Because MySQL fanboys consistently tout their favourite DBMS praising it for it's supposedly enterprise goodness.

And PostgreSQL-fanboys do the exact same thing with their "why use MySQL, when you could use PostgreSQL-instead"-whining. Pot, meet kettle, kettle, this is pot. I find it REALLY funny that you consider this to be a point against MySQL, considering how PostrrgeSQL-users ALWAYS start to tout their favourite database the moment someone mentions MySQL!

And like it or not, there ARE lots of enterprises that run MySQL.

- Because MySQL web hosting is everywhere despite it's bugs, it's lack of features, it's violation of elementary SQL statement standards thus frustrating and bogging me down fiddling with the schema while I could do better things. Think MSIE HTML bastardization.

Then go ahead and "do better things". Or do you think that you should have some ultimate authority to dictate others what software they can and can't run? Some people choose to use MySQl, and they propably have their reasons for doing so. And they have every right to use MySQL, no matter how much you and other PostgreSQL-fanatics whine about it.

Rest of your "points" are nothing but "I don't like MySQL, but I occasionally have to work on it". Well boo-fucking-hoo. I don't like Windows but I have to work on it as well.

and by the way, I'm a Mac user

Maybe that explains it. maybe that rabid fanboyism and general jihad against everything not related to their favourite piece of software is spreading to PostgreSQL?

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:PotgreSQL... by curious.corn · 2006-02-16 02:24 · Score: 2, Insightful

Maybe that explains it. maybe that rabid fanboyism and general jihad against everything not related to their favourite piece of software is spreading to PostgreSQL?

Nope, first and foremost I'm a unix geek. Lived off Linux since RH5.1 and got the PostgreSQL syndrome way back. Mac user since OSX because of it's unix goodness

When I started learning SQL I shopped around for a DBMS, tried MySQL, read the criticisms, hated the documentation, found the inconsistencies in the language, hated it for the inexplicable error handling, dumped it. Moved to PostgreSQL, walked through the tutorials, read about ACID, saw that I could do it on PostgreSQL and understand where I'd fail doing the right thing. Had some complaints on quoting in the SQL statements but overall found it comfortable to use opposed to messing around with obscure 'leet d00d gotchas sprinkled around.

Many php script bunches, some quite neat, take MySQL for granted, like many sites do with MSIE. I don't want MySQL lying around my systems so I'm the one that's forced to follow other people's choices! What's so difficult in wrapping dB access behind a facade? Don't want to mess around with PostgreSQL? Fine, I can write and contribute the backend but if the mysqlconnect code is sprinkled around the scripts is it my fault for whining or is it because of poor design?

MySQL bogs down when doing DB tasks, fast when doing pure reads; still slower that a filesystem though so why not just go with filesystem based spools? Those are easy to tar-up while MySQL chokes on it's own schema dumps and doesn't even warn about inconsistent data fields! It substitutes it with default values! It messes with the data and doesn't even tell me about it! Sorry MySQL is a toy, it's only good to discriminate those that know their shit from the wannabees.

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:PotgreSQL... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-16 02:29 · Score: 0

How about the .org registrar, which uses PostgreSQL?
Re:PotgreSQL... by Jamesday · 2006-02-16 07:02 · Score: 1

Maybe. The only estimate I've seen of total .org lookups per day is 390 million (6% of all root domain lookups) in 2002. I don't have any information on how many of those are served from caches before they hit the database server. Presumably they mostly fall into the very simple query for a very small amount of data category.
Re:PotgreSQL... by 10Ghz · 2006-02-16 19:38 · Score: 1

I'm the one that's forced to follow other people's choices!

You want some cheese with that whine? I have to follow other people's choices all the time, yet I don't whine about it. You keep on whining how you dislike MySQL, and then insist that everyone must use your favourite piece of software. You keep on whining how you are forced to use MySQL, and then you insist that everyone must use PostgreSQL. Pot, meet kettle.

Sometimes you have to do things you might not like. You might not like MySQL, and you have that right. Other people might like MySQL and they have that right as well. Are you saying that they should not use MySQL because you don't like it?

MySQL is a toy

Like it or not, many companies (large companies among them) rely on that "toy", and they don't seem to have any problems with it. Again, this is just a case of "My favourite piece of software is really good, whereas this competing piece of software is just a toy!". Go right ahead and use whatever you want to use, and let others use whatever they want to use. Seriously: that constant whining that eminates from the PostgreSQL-camp makes the users of PostgreSQL look bad, and it makes the whole project look bad. Who would want to associate with such a bunch of whiners? If you have found a kick-ass piece of softweare that you like, great! Then go ahead and use it! But constantly whining about the competition is just that: whining. You don't accomplish anything, apart from annoying people who are getting fed up with the constant whining from the PostgreSQL-users.

Do you want others to start using PostgreSQL? If you do, you are doing it wrong. Instead of putting the competition down (like PostgreSQL-users do ALL THE TIME), why not concentrate on the good points of PSQL? Instead of whining "MySQL is a toy!", "I have to use MySQL and I don't like it!", "why use MySQL when you could use PostrgreSQL?" or some other crap like that, try to do it constructively. But to be honest, all I ever hear from the PostgreSQL-camp is whine, whine and more whine. Every time someone mentions MySQL, the PostgreSQL-idiots come out from their caves, even if the discussion was not about PostgreSQL, they feel compelled to drag their favourite piece of software in to the discussion, and start whining about the competition. Is that constructive? No. It's annoying as hell.

--
Lesbian Nazi Hookers Abducted by UFOs and Forced Into Weight Loss Programs - -all next week on Town Talk.
Re:PotgreSQL... by curious.corn · 2006-02-17 02:19 · Score: 1

You want some cheese with that whine? I have to follow other people's choices all the time, yet I don't whine about it. You keep on whining how you dislike MySQL, and then insist that everyone must use your favourite piece of software. You keep on whining how you are forced to use MySQL, and then you insist that everyone must use PostgreSQL. Pot, meet kettle.

I don't care if the rest of the world uses MySQL. I get pissed off when I shop around for a portal or some other web based thingie and that DBMS pops up as a requirement. Messing with the schema dump would be a minor hassle but often the stinking dependancy is hardcoded and sprinkled all across the code. Granted, it's a clear indication that the authors are bad coders but why, for hell's sake, won't people learn to put all the db access behind an interface. The point is that people think: it's LA_M_P, everyone will go M so why bother? Yeah, that's just like MSIEism...

Arguing that large companies all go for MySQL isn't all that strong. Most of PHB are notoriously obtuse, they read the rag ads that's all. I whine against the groupthink; we all used to do when big wigs used to say linux "wasn't ready for corporate". Guess who was right...

--
Mi domando chi Ã il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
Re:PotgreSQL... by geminidomino · 2006-02-25 17:22 · Score: 1

except for the nifty LAMP acronym

So that's why my FreeBSD/Apache/Postgres/PHP hasn't taken off!

Actually.... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:42 · Score: 0

Profit ?????? buy stuff ?????? PROFIT!!

So ..... by gstoddart · 2006-02-14 14:45 · Score: 1

Should I grab a copy of it while it's still free for personal use in case I want it later?

I can't imagine it's in Oracle's ineterest for me to be able to grab a quality database which will do what I need it to do for free.

I've always liked the Berkeley Database stuff, since the key/value sets it uses can be used in cases where a traditional RDB doesn't always apply.

Sad to hear SleeyCat is going away. They have some cool stuff.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.

Re:So ..... by PornMaster · 2006-02-14 14:56 · Score: 1

Sad to hear SleeyCat is going away. They have some cool stuff.

There's always hope that Sleepycat folk will pull a Justin Frankel and be a pain in the ass. :)

--
500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
Re:So ..... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 03:03 · Score: 0

Oracle is now providing their own free database that does what a lot of people want; check out Oracle Express.

Raw Power Refactored by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 14:53 · Score: 0

Profit
Embrace
Extinguish

Fuck the ?????

not a competitor by andrewzx1 · 2006-02-14 15:04 · Score: 1

SleepyCat is an embedded database that doesn't even process SQL. It doesn't compete with any Oracle products. This is about diversification.

Re:not a competitor by Christopher+B.+Brown · 2006-02-14 15:11 · Score: 1

Ah, but it was a competitor, in that it was the only non-Oracle-owned database engine that MySQL(tm) could use for transactional data storage.
Oracle previously bought InnoDB OY, who were the vendor of the other (non-SQL) transactional engine used by MySQL(tm).

--
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
Re:not a competitor by andrewzx1 · 2006-02-15 01:40 · Score: 1

I think you and everyone else here has the business strategy wrong. If people want a substitute for SleepyCat, well, Berkeley DB is still free. And there are several other open source substitutes for SleepyCat should the need arise. Which it won't.

No, I'm quite right. by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-14 15:07 · Score: 1

BDB isn't a database server, nor is it relational, nor does it involve SQL in any way. Its a lower level database, it could be used to create a backend for a database server (like mysql uses it for), but does not in any way compete with oracle, which is a relational database server.

Re:No, I'm quite right. by rthille · 2006-02-15 18:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

A real company, shipping real and expensive software decided to spend lots of engineering time replacing Oracle with Sleepycat in order to lower the cost to store data in a database, with searching capabilities. Oracle made less money because of this. What would you call that if not competition?

--
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/

Wouldn't it be neat by putko · 2006-02-14 15:09 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be neat if the new company revoked the open source license for the DB? The company owns the Copyright. Supposedly it can revoke the open source license whenever it changes its mind, which means, whenever Oracle changes its mind. Everyone using it would suddenly be without a license.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html

Re:Wouldn't it be neat by BigGerman · 2006-02-14 15:28 · Score: 1

I am not a lawyer, but this kind of thing cant go back in time. GPL and the like dont put time clause on the license. If you (copyright holder) gave me the right to use your creation, that is how it stays. Future versions (even minor improvements) is a fair game though.
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by Pollardito · 2006-02-14 15:35 · Score: 1

i'm pretty sure that you can't revoke the license that the code was distributed with in the past, you can only change the license for new distributions (and your license can include terms that say that it can't be redistributed so that technically any new users would have to come to you under whatever your current license is at the time)
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by flooey · 2006-02-14 16:59 · Score: 1

Wouldn't it be neat if the new company revoked the open source license for the DB?
Not really, no.
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by putko · 2006-02-14 18:36 · Score: 1

It isn't a matter of going back in time. The point is, unless you have a contract with the Copyright holder, he can change the license.

Please see p.56 here: http://rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch04.pdf

That's from a book by a lawyer about open source licenses.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by putko · 2006-02-14 18:39 · Score: 1

If you'd like to learn more of the legal details, please look at this:

http://rosenlaw.com/Rosen_Ch04.pdf
That's from a book by a lawyer about open source licenses.

There is no historical precedent for what you are describing, "open source style" licensing is a new concept.

The concept of a contract, with exchange of value and mutual obligations, is what our legal system runs one. Not one party making an irrevocable grant to people he doens't even know -- that's a new concept.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by 49152 · 2006-02-14 19:33 · Score: 1

> Wouldn't it be neat if the new company revoked the open source license for the DB? The company owns the Copyright.

Do they really own the copyright 100%?

I'm not familiar with this special case, but in many open source projects the source code comes from lots of different authors. Unless SleepyCat actually wrote all the code themself or had everyone sign over their copyright before accepting patches, then they cannot change the license without either getting permission from all the authors or ripping out the relevant code.

This is one of the reasons it is not always simple to change licenses on big open source projects.
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by putko · 2006-02-14 20:34 · Score: 1

Sleepycat's new management could revoke the license for the stuff they wrote. Other people would retain any copyrights to derivative works, but they'd be pretty useless without the original stuff. E.g. I make some songs. You make a compilation. Then I take by the license to the songs. You are left with the copyright to your playlist.

--
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by 49152 · 2006-02-14 20:59 · Score: 1

Depending on how much code they have accepted from outside sources (may be nill) then it might leave their part of the code pretty useless too, at least until they can rewrite the offending code.

Even if it is only a few percentage of the total code base, it might be interconnected and scattered all over the code and involve quite a lot of work to identify and remove/rewrite.

Analogy: What would happen to that song of yours if every third sentence had to be completely rewritten?
Re:Wouldn't it be neat by Pollardito · 2006-02-15 12:02 · Score: 1

that PDF link appears to be dead. here's a counter link that says that GPL licenses aren't as novel as you're saying they are. anyway, it doesn't seem like no-burden licensing is a new thing, the ability for something to be placed in the public domain has existed for a while and that's the ultimate no-burden license. these aren't even no-burden licenses because open source licensing puts more of a burden on the user of the item than putting something in the public domain would; the user of the software is usually obligated in some way, whether that's inclusion of the license/credit clause in the final product or the requirement to license derived software under an equally open license.

anyway, what the parent poster seemed to be implying is that Oracle could change the terms of the purchased license and have the change work retroactively on people who have already taken the code and were complying with the terms of the license that existed at the time that they took the code. surely that should be covered by some settled case law, setting open-source licenses aside i can't imagine that this hasn't come up before with some sort of license dispute.

let me add an IANAL here, but this sure seems like basic stuff

I sense you needing hooked on phonics. by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-14 15:10 · Score: 1

You can certainly argue that mysql competes with oracle. They are both relational SQL database servers. Oracle did not purchase mysql however, they bought sleepycat, who makes BDB, which is in no way a competitor to oracle. It is neither relational, nor SQL, nor even a server. Its a low level database library. It is also BSD licensed, so mysql can go right ahead and keep using it until they end of time, regardless of who buys the company who made it.

more generic interfaces by vlad_petric · 2006-02-14 15:15 · Score: 1

I really think that using a more generic interface, such as JDBC/ODBC would effectively act as a GPL barrier. Sure, it's not as fast, but it should work. Furthermore, if you built from scratch a library that talked with the mysql server, you could give it a generic license.

I'm not arguing that Oracle didn't do it with the intention to kill the competitor, just that the consequences aren't as drastic, at least not in the short term.

--

The Raven

Re:more generic interfaces by jadavis · 2006-02-14 15:31 · Score: 1

I really think that using a more generic interface, such as JDBC/ODBC would effectively act as a GPL barrier

True. The difficulty there is that MySQL's version of SQL is substantially different from other dialects. Granted, the standard is not adhered to all that well by anyone. But there are definately a few MySQLisms that would stand out, and limit that argument. I don't know whether it would stand up or not, but it seems like a lawyer could make a reasonable argument that "hey, they're just using this as a workaround layer" if you're still using highly MySQL-specific SQL.

Furthermore, if you built from scratch a library that talked with the mysql server, you could give it a generic license.

Yes. I highly recommend that people interested in MySQL as an open source database do indeed implement a from-scratch LGPL version of the library. It may be necessary in the future, in a sudden way. Then, if the worst happened (development from MySQL AB, Innobase, and Sleepycat just stopped), you would at least have the commercial users still on board when you needed to organize some developers to fork the code. If you didn't have the LGPL library, the commercial MySQL licensees would just have to jump ship when that happened.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

Oracle choking MySQL by kbahey · 2006-02-14 15:17 · Score: 1

The other day, I wrote about Oracle becoming too powerful and that now MySQL AB is totally screwed up.

MySQL AB should have first seen that Inno is crucial to them, and bought them out.

Having failed to do that, BDB was the engine left after Oracle gobbled up Inno, and MySQL AB should have bought them out.

Now MySQL AB will get choked ...

--
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.

Re:Oracle choking MySQL by MemoryDragon · 2006-02-14 20:57 · Score: 1

There still is firebird and postgres, but integrating their repos would mean to lose the face for MySQLAB...

[bdbxml-ann] Oracle acquires Sleepycat by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:22 · Score: 2, Informative

I'm pleased to announce today that Sleepycat Software has been acquired by
Oracle.

By joining the leading database company in the world, I expect that we
will be able to serve our customers and the open source community better.
With the additional expertise, resources and reach of Oracle, we'll be
able to accelerate innovation, offer you greater choice, and provide more
complete solutions. For Oracle, we fill a gap in the product portfolio
for high performance embedded/edge databases, an area which we believe is
a significant and growing opportunity.

I assure you that we will continue to deliver the products and services
that you are used to receiving from Sleepycat Software. We plan to
continue developing, supporting and selling the entire family of Berkeley
DB products, including our XML and Java Editions. There are no plans to
change our dual license model, and we will continue to serve both open
source and commercial users. Oracle will honor the terms and conditions
of existing Sleepycat agreements.

All of your contacts, phone numbers and email addresses for Sleepycat
Sales and Customer Support remain the same. In fact, 100% of Sleepycat's
employees are expected to transition to Oracle, so we retain all our deep
technical expertise and community relationships. We look forward to
working with you as part of Oracle!

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us at
info@sleepycat.com.

Regards,
Mike Olson
Vice President, Oracle
Former President and CEO
Sleepycat Software

Re:[bdbxml-ann] Oracle acquires Sleepycat by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 20:26 · Score: 0

Something very similar happened to me in 2001. I am the developer of Hypersonic SQL (Java database engine). PointBase, who also developed a Java SQL database, asked me if I want to work for them, I said yes. We agreed I will continue to work on Hypersonic SQL. But this suddenly changed about half a year later, and they made me to work on something else. So they 'bought' (well, I only got shares, which are now worthless) me, and then tried to kill the competitor. They made me stop the Hyperonic SQL project. But it was forked (HSQLDB). I left PointBase in 2003, and now I'm working on a new Java database: H2 (http://www.h2database.com/).

I think what Oracle will do is slowly re-assign the developers to do something else ('compatibility', 'migration' and so on). In about one year the projects will be basically dead. Not sure if the code will be forked, but if the main developers of the codebase are gone (no longer working on it), the code becomes a legacy, and in most cases development is slowed down a lot.

MySQL will probably start developing their own transactional backend. They have now enough money to do that. My guess is they will start a branch in California, and hire some ex-Sleepycat developers.

Thomas, author of Hypersonic SQL

Says the Noob... by dartarrow · 2006-02-14 15:27 · Score: 1

According to the license here,

Q: What must I release as open source?

A: Under the open source license, you must release the complete source code for the application that uses Berkeley DB, Berkeley DB Java Edition or Berkeley DB XML. You do not need to release the source code for components that are generally installed on the operating system on which your application runs, such as system header files or libraries.

Would that mean that Oracle would have to comply with that license, and release source for whatever they use it with? Or are they allowed to change the sleepyCat license?

--
I love humanity, it is people I hate

Re:Says the Noob... by zero2k · 2006-02-14 15:40 · Score: 1

They own it, they can do whatever they want with future versions.
Re:Says the Noob... by deque_alpha · 2006-02-14 15:43 · Score: 1

I haven't read their specific license in detail, but generally speaking, as they copyright holder of the Berkley DB code they can choose to change the license but only on versions they release in the future. They can't retroactively change the license on stuff that's already out there. That's how it works with every other OSS (or otherwise?) license I have in-depth experience with.
Re:Says the Noob... by danielk1982 · 2006-02-14 15:50 · Score: 1

Would that mean that Oracle would have to comply with that license, and release source for whatever they use it with?

No. They own all rights. They are the ones that set the rules now.

Or are they allowed to change the sleepyCat license?

Yes they can. They can turn it proprietary or re-license it under ..say...MIT.
Re:Says the Noob... by danielk1982 · 2006-02-14 15:54 · Score: 1

They can't retroactively change the license on stuff that's already out there.

Why not?

This point has never been tested in court, but as a copyright holder you hold all the marbles with respect to your IP.
Re:Says the Noob... by larry+bagina · 2006-02-14 16:42 · Score: 1

Promissory estoppel

--
Do you even lift?
These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

PostgreSQL is safe from Oracle by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:30 · Score: 2, Insightful

I think Oracles recent acquisitions shows how semi-open commercial OSS can be a less reliable platform to develop on than truly OSS which isn't owned by any single entity.

Sure the MySQL engines are open source and you can always fork it if they change the license, but forking such massive projects is unrealistic, and Oracle knows this.

The project I'm currently planning is going to use PostgreSQL, instead of MySQL as usual; Oracle can't buy it because it's not owned by a single company. No matter how much Oracle tries to buy out competition there'll always be PostgreSQL.

Re:PostgreSQL is safe from Oracle by ubiquitin · 2006-02-15 03:17 · Score: 1

But what about Ingres?

--
http://tinyurl.com/4ny52

I like the press release from Oracle by Beached · 2006-02-14 15:36 · Score: 1

..."projects such as the Linux and BSD UNIX operating systems, Apache web server, OpenLDAP directory, OpenOffice productivity software, and many others embed Berkeley DB technology."

Apparently Linux has BDB embedded in it somewhere ;) I didn't realize that the Linux kernel had Sleepycat source code in it. Maybe SCO would like to know about that too.

--
---- aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Re:I like the press release from Oracle by PCM2 · 2006-02-14 17:41 · Score: 1

That's supposed to be funny?

I know there is a PAM userdb module that embeds Berkeley DB, and at least in the past even some device drivers did.

According to the Sleepycat Web site, all versions of Linux embed some version of Berkeley DB, as do all versions of *BSD.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:I like the press release from Oracle by Chainsaw · 2006-02-15 04:00 · Score: 1

Linux is a kernel. Why would a Unix-workalike kernel embed a database?

--
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.
Re:I like the press release from Oracle by PCM2 · 2006-02-15 07:37 · Score: 1

Why are you asking me? Ask the authors of the kernel components I just mentioned.

--
Breakfast served all day!
Re:I like the press release from Oracle by Chainsaw · 2006-02-15 11:05 · Score: 1

PAM is a userspace application. Linux is the kernel, or the thingamob that runs all of your applications. They are totally separate.

The application named Emacs is NOT inside the Linux kernel.
The application named MySQL is NOT inside the Linux kernel.
The application named PAM is NOT inside the Linux kernel.

They are all APPLICATIONS. Which means they do NOT run inside the kernel. Do you understand now why Linux doesn't use the Sleepycat DB libraries?

--
War is one of the most horrible things a human can be exposed to. And one of the worlds largest industries.

their business plan seems pretty obvious by Edmund+Blackadder · 2006-02-14 15:38 · Score: 1

Their business plan seems pretty obvious. But just in case I will state it in the usual slashdot fashion:

1. buy out all competitors
2. charge high prices
3. profit

The same method has been used with some success by other companies (such as legal data providers, for example). But I am not sure it will work here. I mean on one hand they are eliminating competitors, but on the other, they are sending a clear message to developers, that if you want millions of dollars all you have to do is write a commercial grade database and let Oracle buy you out.

Then Oracle will just be breeding new competitors as it buys out the old ones.

hell even i am thinking of hitting the books and writing a database now. Considering the multi-million dollar reward ... how hard could it be?

Well, they could throw some money my way by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:39 · Score: 0

I've been considering doing a lock-free database which would run really fast. Apparently nobody has actually done a database that's lock-free in implementation though a few claim to have done so but their claims aren't credible. At least to somebody who has done a few lock-free algorithms. But doing a database is a non-trivial undertaking. It would take a little bit of time and money.

You think PayPal for sourceforge projects can handle million dollar donations? I wish. :)

Sleepycat Java database by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:41 · Score: 0

I guess the main reason that Oracle bought Sleepycat is for their pure java database. Oracle is a big Java shop. So, this makes sense.

Its not all about MySQL.

No, you're still wrong. by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-14 15:42 · Score: 1

If one person chooses BDB over Oracle after they've been using Oracle for a while, that's competition. Granted they may be very different types of software, but if both can achieve the same goal in the end they can still compete against each other.

Smelly Cat by maddu · 2006-02-14 15:45 · Score: 1

What is Oracle doing with Smelly Cat from Friends' Feby?

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 15:47 · Score: 0

Are you seriously trying to say that Oracle is in competition with MySQL?

Yes, in the sense that the boss says "we need to have a webapp that talks to a database, get it done" and without products like mysql or postgres people will have to look to Oracle, even for minor apps.

work-arounds by vlad_petric · 2006-02-14 15:48 · Score: 1

The question, of course, is what represents derivative work in such a case. IANAL, but something that can be easily identified as a distinct part, running in a different process, etc and doesn't include a single line of code of the original codebase is very unlikely to be considered derived work (GPL has a specific paragraph on that, although it's somewhat vague). Even if the only db it works with is MySql.

Unfortunately, we don't have a legal precedent for this. Regardless, it's very similar to what nVidia is doing with its linux binaries

--

The Raven

Re:work-arounds by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:15 · Score: 1

The GPL can have 10 paragraphs on it, but the real question is what a judge will determine to be a derivative work in the court of law. Derivative works are determined by copyright law, not a license. If something is determined by copyright law (and a judge) not to be a derivative work of product X, you are 100% free from the requirement to license at all from the copyright holder(s) of product X. However, if it is determined to be a derivative work of product X, you are 100% bound by the terms of product X.

By your reasoning, any derivative code could be magically turned into non-derivative code by writing a wrapper in 5 lines of code. I think you can get away with that if your wrapper implements a real standard, because then you can distribute your product (which makes use of standard A), and the wrapper for use by any of N existing products (N > 1), then just distribute one of those existing products seperately. However, if your product makes use of something that isn't really a standard, and it entirely depends on some specific product, it's obvious that you're trying magically make your derivitive work into an independent work without actually doing the work yourself.

Truly free software doesn't require you to hide in a legal grey area, constantly in fear of being sued. And if someone did sue, it would have some merit at least, so it would cost you a bundle to defend yourself.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:work-arounds by vlad_petric · 2006-02-14 16:49 · Score: 1

You're absolutely right here, and I totally agree that it's ultimately up to a judge. The FAQ of the license, however, specifically identifies static and dynamic linking as derivative works; anything else (i.e. talking over a socket) falls under the "gray area".

--
The Raven
Re:work-arounds by jbolden · 2006-02-15 01:05 · Score: 1

A distinct book published by a different company from the original, not including a single word from the original but having the same characters and requiring the first book to make sense was considered a derived work.

Berkeley -> OID? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-02-14 15:58 · Score: 1

BerkeleyDB is the default storage engine used by OpenLDAP. Oracle can replace OpenLDAP, as OID. But what's it like to replace only the BerkeleyDB with Oracle, under an OpenLDAP server? And what's it like to then drop the OpenLDAP part, leaving only OID? Anyone actually done any of this? Expect to be doing it more, now that BerkeleyDB is part of Oracle?

--

--
make install -not war

Re:Berkeley -> OID? by Doc+Ruby · 2006-02-15 03:48 · Score: 1

I can throw faster/more HW at a performance decrease resulting from adding abstraction. But adding that abstraction is the only way to integrate my other apps with that directory data. And, though LDAP performance might be fast with the BerkeleyDB, doing other (non-LDAP) lookups on the data is slow, compared to the join performance of queries on Oracle with SQL.

I'm going to keep looking for specific examples of replacing OpenLDAP with OID. The examples I've found on the Web so far look like they've got missing details for installation, and sketchy performance comparisons (to plan just how much more/faster HW). But someone must have the results I need to make informed plans.

--
--
make install -not war

heh... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:02 · Score: 0

How could they NOT have seen this coming? While its sad to see one companies way of dealing with competition is to destroy it, the guys at at MySQL should have known that this was going to happen.

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2006-02-14 16:04 · Score: 3, Insightful

Comment removed based on user account deletion

There arre two reasons to buy a company... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:09 · Score: 1, Insightful

One reason to buy a company is because they have something you want to sell. The other is they have something you want off the market. I'll let you decide which one Oracle is doing.

Re:There arre two reasons to buy a company... by jilles · 2006-02-14 23:20 · Score: 1

Everybody here seems to be seeing conspiracies here. Database licenses are increasingly less important to Oracle as their revenues from application servers and services are growing (and already larger than revenue from database licenses). By owning relevant products that cover the full spectrum from embedded databases to full blown enterprise databases they ensure that they are the guys to talk to when considering doing anything involving database storage.

Oracle now has in its productline:
- several databases
- application servers
- IDEs
- ERP software

All of which serve a single purpose: selling services to enterprises. License revenue is nice but peanuts compared to the services component of the bill. The low end of the market is where the growth is and mysql dominates that market. Oracle's latest aqcuisitions are merely their entry ticket to this market. They're not there to destroy the market but to take it over and make sure that they can sell their services in that market as well.

--

Jilles

Well, just fork it... by $ASANY · 2006-02-14 16:15 · Score: 1

They're both open source, so just create a fork that's API compatible if you really want to. You don't need to use InnoDB's codebranch, you can make your own.

I'm not entirely sure why Oracle decided it needed these storage technologies. Perhaps it's because their failure to develop native storage of numeric datatypes and their other glaring architectural weaknesses are catching up with them, and they want to have a leagl means of rearchitecting their physical storage with third-party code. Maybe they want to take the flagging Oracle Lite product and reengineer it so it'll actually be useful and reliable. There could be all sorts of non-threatening reasons why Oracle might do this.

One thing they can't do is take the open source code away from you and MySQL. What is open source and in the public now, will always be there. What happens to development of these codebases does depend a lot on Oracle, but you have the freedom to make sure it doesn't entirely depend on them. All it takes is some effort on your part.

Re:Well, just fork it... by jadavis · 2006-02-14 16:33 · Score: 1

By the time any of that happens, it will most likely be too late. Oracle is just buying time, but that's all they need right now while they're collecting huge license fees.

I'm sure some people really like MySQL and might want to take up development, but not me. I am a PostgreSQL user. There are no such restrictions on PostgreSQL, and it works better for everything that I need it to do. Why take MySQL's almost-free database when there are great -- and truly free -- database alternatives like PostgreSQL, FirebirdSQL, Ingres, &c. available?

I am mostly interested in this discussion because of the business aspects of it, and how that relates to F/OSS. We might be seeing an example of a business model that doesn't work (dual license + depend on other companies), and that's important to the whole F/OSS community.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

Chuck Norris... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:16 · Score: 0

...can acquire any company by roundhouse kicking them into his portfolio.

i wish oracle kills mysql by diablobsb · 2006-02-14 16:23 · Score: 0, Flamebait

and we can all go to a real database such as postgres, which is safe from oracle et al.

--
I for one, welcome our new hot grits... PROFIT!

Re:i wish oracle kills mysql by mytrip · 2006-02-14 17:18 · Score: 1

This is stupid. Mysql is driving a lot of people to open source and is maturing rapidly. You screwballs that want to reduce choice need to question why...

--
Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be particular about who it makes friends with.

Third reason. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 16:36 · Score: 0

To take on unattractive debt to ward off hostile takeovers.

come on by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 17:03 · Score: 0

does anyone here even know that Sleepycat is a real business trying to make real money and not just a toy for MySQL or ? Does anyone know how much they charge for a commerical license or that that price has doubled in one year? Try $150k per product. Despite what everyone may want to believe, and I agree, Ellison is only slightly less evil than Dick Cheney, the guys at Sleepycat are probably not unhappy about this... at least most of them.

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by IdleTime · 2006-02-14 17:16 · Score: 1

What kind of a measure is that? ROFLMAO! Maybe it means that it is much worse and have more problems? Or it means that users of Oracle don't rely on Internet based forums to get answers?

This got to be the funniest post of the year!

--
If you mod me down, I *will* introduce you to my sister!

what? by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 17:17 · Score: 0

The gpl (paraphrased)says you don't have to release source if it's internal and not distributed. All the action in the "distributed" sense. So where's the beef? You been working all this time thinking you had to release it to the public, so you didn't use it? If you want to link non free to free and distribute it you use the lesser gpl. Still covered. there ya go.

Worrying by Joff_NZ · 2006-02-14 17:18 · Score: 1

I'm starting to notice a worrying trend from Oracle

First they bought out InnoBase, now SleepyCat, and it looks like probably JBoss soon..

Is Oracle/Ellison attemping to simply buy out a good sized chunk of the mature open source offerings? For what purpose I wonder? To stop (or slow down) their competition with Oracle's own products? To use them against Microsoft and/or IBM?

At any rate, I don't like it, not one bit

--
The revolution will not be televised. It won't be on a friggin blog either

Re:Worrying by yomahz · 2006-02-15 06:14 · Score: 2, Informative

First they bought out InnoBase, now SleepyCat, and it looks like probably JBoss soon..

Is Oracle/Ellison attemping to simply buy out a good sized chunk of the mature open source offerings? For what purpose I wonder? To stop (or slow down) their competition with Oracle's own products? To use them against Microsoft and/or IBM?

At any rate, I don't like it, not one bit

I'm pretty worried about the JBoss move. I can't imagine Oracle has more than two motives here:

1) Compete with IBM in the smaller, free application server market.

2) Get rid of their open source competition.

I have a hunch that #2 is much more likely. Jboss doesn't just have a competing applicaion server, it also has a competing ORM framekwork (Toplink vs Hibernate).

--
"A mind is a terrible thing to taste."

BerkeleyDB is NOT OPEN SOURCE by slumos · 2006-02-14 17:29 · Score: 1

It fails the very first part of the Open Source Definition because non-open-source products have to buy a (rather expensive) license.

A lot of companies stand to get caught in the crossfire between Oracle and MySQL.

(phx) Ellison Strikes Again! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 17:33 · Score: 0

First you buy a transactional backing for MySQL.

Then you buy a second transactional backing for MySQL.

Close the competition off at the top real good, then using consumate ownage make some smoke, mirrors and angry hippies.

Might as well stick one of those transactional engines on for good measure. Ahhh... that looks real integrated... coming out of the side there.

Lets see how the other companies are doing....

How we doing here SAP?... I said consumate ownage... CONSUMATE. Sheesh, this guy wouldnt know a hostile takeover if it came up and bit him in the face!

RMS: I think I improved on your methods a bit, I employed some impractical idealist visions.....

I'll improve on your methods! FWUMF!!!!!!!!!

BUAHAHAAHAHAHAHA Ellison stikes again!

ELLISONNN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111

Sleepycat responds by Chairman · 2006-02-14 17:43 · Score: 5, Informative

I'm Mike Olson, Sleepycat's (now former!) CEO. I've taken a job as VP at Oracle working on embedded databases. Our entire team has come along.

I've posted a summary of this announcement on the Sleepycat blog, at http://blog.sleepycat.com/2006/02/next-ten-years.h tml. I understand that a big vendor making a series of acquisitions in open source causes concern, but I'm convinced that the plan is as outlined in my posting. We're all showing up for work every day and working on the same embeddable database technology as ever. We're continuing to close deals with new customers and to support old ones. We continue to work closely with open source users.

There's lots of speculation that this move is intended to damage MySQL. I frankly don't see it; MySQL doesn't depend on Berkeley DB. It never did. We've always had a close and cordial relationship with those guys, but both businesses have always concentrated on our own customers and markets. We may have wished, sometimes, that we collaborated more closely, but we never did.

We've been good members of the open source community for a long, long time. We're pleased our software is so broadly used, and we're proud of the projects that rely on it. While I understand the concern, here, I'd ask that you watch what we do. I'm confident in the future of our products and of open source. Give us time to show you what Oracle and Sleepycat can do together.

--
Mike Olson, chairman@olsons.net

Re:Sleepycat responds by mattkime · 2006-02-14 18:34 · Score: 1, Interesting

sorry man, but i think this post is a fraud.

i have a hard time believing you've done such 1337 work yet your slashdot id is so much higher than mine.

--
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Re:Sleepycat responds by hypersql · 2006-02-14 21:20 · Score: 5, Informative

I don't agree MySQL does not depend on Berkeley DB. Without it, and without InnoDB, MySQL needs an alternative. In any case it's bad for MySQL, because some customers are probably already scared.

I think what Oracle will do is change the work priorities inside Sleepycat. Development and support related to MySQL will be stopped completely. Developers will be re-assigned to do things like 'compatibility', 'migration' and so on. Future version of Sleepycat will just not work with MySQL any more. Probably the license agreement will change. Not sure if the code will be forked, but if the main developers of the codebase are gone (no longer working on it), the code becomes a legacy.

Something very similar happened to me in 2001. I am the original author of Hypersonic SQL (a Java database engine). PointBase, who also developed a Java SQL database, asked me if I want to work for them, I said yes. We agreed I will continue to work on Hypersonic SQL. But this suddenly changed about half a year later, and they made me to work on something else (PointBase Micro, PointBase UniSync). So they 'bought' me (well, I only got shares, which are now worthless). And then tried to kill the competitor. They told me to stop the Hypersonic SQL project. But it was forked (HSQLDB). I left PointBase in 2003, and now I'm working on a new Java database: H2 (http://www.h2database.com/).

MySQL will probably start developing their own transactional backend. They have now enough money to do that. They should do that, probably they already started (I was asked to work for them, but obviously I said no because of H2). My guess is MySQL will start a branch in the Bay Area, and hire some good developers there. There are quite a lot good database developers in this region.

Thomas Mueller, former author of Hypersonic SQL
Re:Sleepycat responds by killjoe · 2006-02-14 22:33 · Score: 1

mysql already has maxdb (formerly known as sapdb). It's a fully transactional database with all the bells and whistles.

I don't see what they have to worry about.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Sleepycat responds by hypersql · 2006-02-15 00:47 · Score: 1

MaxDB is a different product, not (yet) a 'storage engine' of the regular MySQL 5.0. It's a different codeline, and I'm not sure if its fast. Maybe it can be integrated with the core MySQL database, but currently, it's not. And just the fact it 'belongs' to MySQL doesn't make it a good candidate for integrating, technically. Well, maybe from a manager perspective it does :-) Well, let's see what happens next. Thomas
Re:Sleepycat responds by maelstrom · 2006-02-15 01:31 · Score: 1

Slashdot ID is hardly indicative of "l33tness".

--
The more you know, the less you understand.
Re:Sleepycat responds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 02:02 · Score: 0

In other words:

"They are treating us very well here. Just do as they say. Don't involve the police"
Re:Sleepycat responds by ldapboy · 2006-02-15 02:07 · Score: 1

I know Mike, that that's him talking.
Re:Sleepycat responds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 03:25 · Score: 0

Har har! I wonder what Bill Gates' ID is?
Re:Sleepycat responds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 03:56 · Score: 0

I received notification of this transaction from you via an email which concluded: "The above is for informational purposes only and may not be incorporated into a contract."

Words are cheap. I'm currently trying to decide how much time I'd like to invest in your native XML database, and my decision will be weighted heavily by whether I feel the product will continue to be offered on the same license terms for the indefinite future. I also want to know that the F/OSS product ships with the same feature set as any commercial offering. Can you offer more assurance than "I'm convinced that the plan is as outlined in my posting."? You may be convinced, but is your new boss?

There are enough ambiguities in the language used so far that prognosticating future license terms amounts to nothing more than completely uninformed speculation, IMO.
Re:Sleepycat responds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 04:20 · Score: 0

I for one welcome my new humble 3-digit slashdot id overlords.
Re:Sleepycat responds by Joseph+Vigneau · 2006-02-15 05:27 · Score: 1

No kidding.
Re:Sleepycat responds by killjoe · 2006-02-15 07:58 · Score: 1

Nusphere has a MSQL backend called genesis. It's highly transactional and highly scalable. They have run tests on it and they were able to take advantage of 16 processors on it. MYSQL sued them a while back for GPL violation and won. They still sell a branded mysql server because they got a license from MYSQL.

So all mysql has to do is to buy that company or license their engine and voila, done deal.

--
evil is as evil does
Re:Sleepycat responds by mattkime · 2006-02-15 09:08 · Score: 1

then how do YOU measure?

--
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Re:Sleepycat responds by cerberusss · 2006-02-15 23:22 · Score: 1

This is a standard strategy. Quest also killed off TOra. Quest sells database development tools for Windows and TOra runs on Linux. They killed TOra by employing Henrik Johnson, see this article: TOra Project Looking for New Maintainer.
At the time, I told a colleague senior developer and was absolutely amazed when Quest offered Henrik a job. He immediately said: "I think they're going to kill it". I thought he was being an old mouldy and complaining senior developer, but hey he was right...

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Re:Sleepycat responds by cerberusss · 2006-02-15 23:28 · Score: 1

Mike, I'm happy that you're positive but I hope Oracle made some promises and put them on paper. See this article: TOra looking for a new maintainer.
Remember, Oracle didn't become so huge by being nice.
Oh, and your software rocks!!

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Re:Sleepycat responds by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-16 12:32 · Score: 0

Tell me you're not going to screw Chandler. As I'm sure you know, Chandler uses DB XML. As I'm sure you also know, Chandler's forthcoming calendaring software uses the open caldav and ical standards, just like Oracle's forthcoming calendaring software. You are now required by law now to serve in your shareholder's best interests. So are you going to become a slavish Wall Street ideologue and nail Chandler to the wall?

I wouldn't even want to breath the same air as Larry Ellison. Now you have to rub shoulders? That's just gross.

Not open source? Since when? by PCM2 · 2006-02-14 17:46 · Score: 1

It fails the very first part of the Open Source Definition because non-open-source products have to buy a (rather expensive) license.

If that's true, then how did Sleepycat's license get OSI-certified?

--
Breakfast served all day!

Re:PostgreSQL... by kbob88 · 2006-02-14 18:10 · Score: 3, Insightful

I completely agree: PostgreSQL should now be *the* open-source database of choice.

I used to use MySQL extensively. Then six months ago, a new client required that we use Postgres. What an eye-opener! Honestly, I'm *never* going back to MySQL. I can't believe I wasted all that time trying to get MySQL work properly, configured right, rewriting SQL to work-around holes in their implementation...

PostgreSQL is fast, stable, and full-featured. It also has a good *open-source* front-end GUI client, pgAdmin. Our production database has never failed in the four months since we released. The required configuration, administration, and maintenance is pretty minimal. You can fairly well just install it, create tables, and start putting data in. The feature set is so much better than MySQL. And you don't have to worry about some company (MySQL AB, or worse, Oracle) controlling your future.

There are probably areas that MySQL does better (replication, perhaps?), but for most situations I have to think that Postgres is better. Plus, when your company gets bought out by the suits for big bucks and they switch you to Oracle, you'll have to rewrite less SQL than if you started with MySQL!

Why is MySQL so popular? Marketing. I think MySQL just got some marketing buzz behind it (probably because they actually have a company to do public relations), then someone coined that dumb LAMP acronym, and O'Reilly publicized the heck out of it. Forget that LAMP stuff; go with LLPRR (OK, an even worse acronym) -- Linux/Lighttpd/PostgreSQL/Ruby/Rails. Or maybe Nitro/Og instead of Rails; hear it's great but haven't checked it out yet...

If oracle wants to control MySQL.... by Matz0r · 2006-02-14 18:52 · Score: 1

Why don't they buy MySQL AB?

Larry Ellison Hates Competition by Gumber · 2006-02-14 18:53 · Score: 1

I think jadavis makes some great points here.

Add to it the general feeling among business analysts that ellison's acquisitions are often targeted to remove "distructive competition" in markets that Oracle is in a position to dominate. So, he'll play hardball to acquire competitors who undermine Oracle's pricing power. Once acquired, their customers are transitioned to Oracle, they are dismantled, and the tech is basically scrapped.

It looks like he's doing something similar to try and contain the influence of mySQL. First, he's buying some of their major suppliers. That gives him leverage over mySQL AG, which he can exert in various ways, including as leverage to get a favorable price for acquiring them.

Get Rich Now! by xenocide2 · 2006-02-14 19:14 · Score: 1

Wanna make a ton of money? I've got a great idea! Write a transactional database that interfaces with MySQL and let Oracle buy you out! Just in case they try to stop you from pulling the same trick twice with a non-compete clause, start up two companies doing the same thing and only actively manage one of em ;).

--
I Browse at +4 Flamebait

Open Source Sysadmin

I just can't wait... by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 19:19 · Score: 0

Until PostgreSQL and EnterpriseDB eat Oracle's lunch!

What is 'diversity' by swisstony101 · 2006-02-14 19:47 · Score: 1

Isn't 'Diversity' an old, old wooden ship used in the American - Spanish war?

AJT

uhh, what?? by deep44 · 2006-02-14 20:00 · Score: 1

What a bad reason to lay off their employees. I can't believe that they bought another company...

Eliminating duplicate positions after a merger is a "bad reason" to layoff employees? You "can't believe" they bought a company that actively maintains & releases the last (potentially) enterprise-grade storage engine for one of their larger competitors?

Those are both no-brainer business decisions from Oracle's point of view. Remember, Oracle has a commitment to its stockholders to make decisions in the best financial interest of the corporation. Part of that commitment means eliminating jobs in certain situations (so when you have two departments essentially responsible for the exact same thing, the next logical step is to eliminate one of those departments).

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by KiloByte · 2006-02-14 20:15 · Score: 1

Not everyone needs a super-duper database.

Right. That's why Oracle still has any use outside of massive databanks while there are "super" (at least "better") databases around. As it stands, free databases are not really capable of reliable operation in bigger clusters.

Speed? There is a reason why Oracle forbids publishing any benchmarks. Namely, the reason is their product simply can't stand up to MySQL speed-wise in most tasks. Indeed, there are _some_ things Oracle can do faster, and this is what gets used in official benchmarks.

Reliability? Innodb > Oracle (well, now they stiffled this). Postgres > Oracle.

Memory usage? This is downright pathethic. An untuned Oracle db takes freaking 800MB before doing anything; in another /. article an Oracle DBA claimed that I'm overestimating this and after careful tuning you can go down to 270MB. Yeah, after careful tuning. An untrimmed mysqld (most bells and whistles on) takes 18MB on start, including things brk()ed for the initial innodb checks. Postgres goes below half of this.
You can claim that a modern server can afford 800MB just fine -- but what if I want to use a separate process [group] per database, or even better, a separate Xen domain? A quite basic security precaution pretty much rules out Oracle unless you want to put all your eggs into one basket. Not to mention that Oracle's approach to fixing exploits is spotty at best.

Thus: Oracle is already trumped everywhere except large databanks. This forces them to block competition in underhanded ways as opposed to actually competing.

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.

What would be cool by einhverfr · 2006-02-14 20:21 · Score: 1

would be if MySQL AB just relicensed the client libs under the LGPL and moved on.

--

LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP

oracle has so much money in the bank by jazir1979 · 2006-02-14 20:28 · Score: 1

for all we know, they could be doing it just to mess with our heads and get some discussion happening on slashdot :P oracle has a lot of cash sitting around, these acquisitions are like fun little games to Larry.

--
What's your GCNSEQNO?

Re:Berkeley - OID? by buchanmilne · 2006-02-14 20:49 · Score: 2, Informative

Oracle can replace OpenLDAP, as OID

I would say Oracle has an LDAP server, that's not very standards compliant, and that they may try and convince people can replace OpenLDAP. Whether OID really can is another matter. Performance-wise, apparently it can't.

BTW, OpenLDAP isn't the only LDAP server that uses Berkeley DB on the backend, FDS/RHDS (the copy of Netscape Directory Server RedHat bought) and JES (Sun's copy of Netscape Directory server they got via the iPlanet alliance) do too.

But what's it like to replace only the BerkeleyDB with Oracle, under an OpenLDAP server?

Just like replacing any fast local database backend (bdb) with another abstraction (SQL) to a model (tables) that doesn't represent the frontend (hierarchical) that well, really bad for performance. OpenLDAP can already use any ODBC/SQL backend, though it's really not the first choice (the only real use is to expose data already in such a database via LDAP, not as a high performance LDAP server). Oracle, DB2, Postgresql, and MySQL have been used successfully (ie it works, but performance is always bad, no matter which is used).

And what's it like to then drop the OpenLDAP part, leaving only OID?

Slow and expensive?

Jesus Christ, enough with "Enterprise" by lewp · 2006-02-14 20:55 · Score: 1

Never has such a vague word been used by so many to mean so little. If you want to discuss the merits of various DBMS's, at least discuss actual features. Saying "DBMS X is/is not 'enterprise'..." just makes you look like a PHB who doesn't know what he's talking about.

--
Game... blouses.

Congrats Keith and Margo by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 21:08 · Score: 0

Before sleepycat was started, I had the privilege of reporting to Keith Bostic (one of the founders of sleepycat), when I worked for BSDI.

I saw the transition from being the manager of engineering to the start of his company, and I'm happy for him that he got this far (in hindsight, look where BSDI is today).

I'm not sure if they will read this, but congrats to Keith and Margo for getting this far.

Geert Jan de Groot

DB2 by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 22:50 · Score: 0

IBM's DB2 entry level (DB2 express-C) is for free. It beats mySQL hands down in every aspect.

NoOoOoOo!!! by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-14 23:56 · Score: 0

A preemptive strike against Sun's Directory Server. Ouch!!!!!

No won't use OID!, I won't! You can't make me!!!

It is bad enough that I have to replicate into OID to use Oracle products (they won't point to Sun's LDAP or AD), you **must** replicate.

Listen for the echo this time ... Nooo!!

Hopefully by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 00:47 · Score: 0

It will cause them to move away from the absolute shit that is BDB. BDB seriously sucks in almost every respect.

Backend for a database by jbolden · 2006-02-15 00:55 · Score: 1

I'm going to ask the dumb question here....

What are you meaining by a backend for a database? AFAIK Berkley DB and MySQL compete in a similar space (though rarely against one another).

Re:Backend for a database by hritcu · 2006-02-15 05:25 · Score: 1

Berkeley DB is not a relational database management system like MySQL. It has a much simpler architecture and does not support SQL, table schema or table columns.

--
If you don't fail at least 90 percent of the time, you're not aiming high enough. (Alan Kay)
Re:Backend for a database by jbolden · 2006-02-15 05:46 · Score: 1

Agreed. Its much more useful for inside a particular app... What I don't understand is how "backend" is being used in grandparent.
Re:Backend for a database by aevans · 2006-02-15 07:21 · Score: 1

backend meaning the format and retrieval method for actually storing the data. InnoDB and BDB both have file formats that tables are actually stored in, CSV and APIs for accessing those formats. So when they refer to the 'backend' they are talking about the actual data storage mechanism that the database server uses.
Re:Backend for a database by aevans · 2006-02-15 07:24 · Score: 1

The "CSV" in the parent post was an editing artifact. I was going to say "CSV is an example of a very simple file format but BDB, for instance, is a binary file format optimized for doing lookups, much more efficient than reading through all "records" (lines) and parsing them for "columns" (and searching for a matching value.
Re:Backend for a database by jbolden · 2006-02-15 07:42 · Score: 1

OK so far that makes sense. Now if you are running a MySQL database server why wouldn't you want to use MySQL's native formats? Why use BDB? Further if you are going to use BDB for you data why use MySQL?

Thanks for the help.

Yep, thats how business is done in AMERICA! by jml75 · 2006-02-15 01:46 · Score: 1

Saddly enough, that really is the way business is done in AMERICA! Buy out the competition.

Greed is really king! And money and power are finalities instead of tools.

Thats what you get when your culture is based almost exclusively on competition.

Cooperation OSS style would be much better in the long term but to fiew people understands that.

Or maybe making the effort to become less selfish, less self-centered is to hard?

More BSD FUD by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 01:49 · Score: 0

Stop spreading FUD. The only people potentially hurt by this transaction, as you elude to but never make explicit, are folks who want to commercially license the code. Too bad for them, but personally, I could give a rat's ass. If such people can't by this example see that the bigger problem is proprietary software in general, then they deserve what they get.

Re:More BSD FUD by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:39 · Score: 1

What if Oracle reassigns the developers of those backends to other projects? Now who develops those backends? Open source coders, you're right. But the open source developers won't act as a successful organization for years. In the meantime, Oracle has essentially bought a couple years' delay, which may effectively kill those backends.

And also, consider that you can't link the client libraries with anything other than GPL code. If you have an open source project that's not GPL, you can't add MySQL support.

Open source works in the long term. I'm talking about the next few years.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

AWSOME by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:02 · Score: 1

Anything that helps postgres is a good thing to me!

Also, arn't those engines open source? Is Innodb closed source but free to use? If thats the case postgres is a much better system, fully GPLd and much, much more capable then MySQL.

But yeah, clearly these moves are targeted to MySQL.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:AWSOME by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:26 · Score: 1

The engines are both available under GPL or a commercial license.

However, as I pointed out, that still causes problems. In particular, the commercial MySQL licenses are required by anyone who adds MySQL support to their non-GPL application because the client libraries are GPL. And, since development of all of MySQL, BDB, and InnoDB are all centralized, it's easier for the development to be disrupted, and harder to restablish a development team for the forked version.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
Re:AWSOME by aevans · 2006-02-15 07:09 · Score: 1

Why, do you have stock in Postgres, Inc.? Oracle paying the developers of open source database engines to stop working on them helps you in what way? You have a very twisted sense of proprietariness.

MySQL on postgres? by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:17 · Score: 1

Maybe MySQL can switch to Postgres as a storage engine. Now that would be intresting.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:MySQL on postgres? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:41 · Score: 1

They could. After all, PostgreSQL is BSD licensed, so it's easy from a licensing standpoint.

However, the obvious question is why not take PostgreSQL's front end also, and just get it from www.postgresql.org? If MySQL uses PostgreSQL as an engine, eventually people are just going to go straight to PostgreSQL and cut out the middle man.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

MySQL AB Stratagy: by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:24 · Score: 1

Couldn't MySQL AB simply poach some of the new Oracle developers to work on InnoDB or BDB's GPL'd code?

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:MySQL AB Stratagy: by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-15 10:52 · Score: 1

That could happen, but something tells me that Oracle would be able to provide much more incentive to work on their projects than MySQL. It's also very possible that agreements were signed that would limit Oracle's employee's ability to work on open source software. HP had (has?) a long standing agreement that anything their customers created / invented was HP's property whether it was created during working hours or not. The original Apple almost became HP's because the Woz worked there. Luckily they weren't interested.

Linking Clients? by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:31 · Score: 1

Why is the ability to link clients even that big of a deal anyway? Can't you just connect on 3306? What about JDBC (for java nerds) or ODBC drivers?

Who links to client libraries these days?

Plus, one thing that drives me nuts about all these MySQL based OSS projects, this LAMP stuff, is that developers don't even try to make things database independant. I mean, come on!

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Linking Clients? by jadavis · 2006-02-15 05:51 · Score: 1

Out of all the databases, MySQL's dialect of SQL seems the most different to me. It's common for coders to use the "`" character (backtick) as some kind of identifier string delimiter or something. I really don't think that's in the SQL spec. And the semantics are different also... particularly the handling of NULLs and out-of-bounds values.

So, that makes it more difficult to be database agnostic. If you have an application that uses that kind of SQL, MySQL AB could make a reasonable argument that you're just using JDBC to circumvent the definition of "derivitive work", and could sue. I don't know whether that claim has merit in court or not, but it seems like a reasonable claim to make.

If people would adhere to standards, it wouldn't be a problem. I agree that things like JDBC are a good idea. If features are shared between two databases, you shouldn't need two different ways to access that feature. If you use a unique feature, at least it will be only one thing you have to port rather than everything.

--
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.

Well... by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:35 · Score: 1

If it was, then Oracle wouldn't need to buy them in the first place. Duh.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Sure, but by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:39 · Score: 1

MySQL's GPL'd stuff is fine, but remember, they also have a closed fork with closed versions of these other engines. If Oracle goes pure GPL only with Berkly and InnoDB it'll seriously harm MySQL's ability raise money, without pissing off the OSS crowd too much.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:Sure, but by ajs · 2006-02-15 02:57 · Score: 1

Again, I do not see this. The closed source version could easily make use of open source libraries (closed source Linux apps do this all the time).

No, I think Oracle would be best served in using this as leverage to offer to buy out MySQL, and turn them into the first-tier Oracle offering.

MySQL is eating Oracle's lunch in the low-end database market, and that has to be pushing Oracle to think in terms of either killing MySQL (not possible) or absorbing them.
Re:Sure, but by Jason+Earl · 2006-02-15 06:37 · Score: 1

Closed source applications make use of open source LGPLed libraries all of the time, but GPLed libraries are a completely different beast. If you link a GPLed library then the resulting application must be distributed under the GPL. That's why the BSD folks got so upset with the FSF's readline library. It was released under the GPL and it forced applications that wanted to use it to be GPled as well. These days libedit is mostly a BSD replacement for readline, but there is at least one program that I know of (ncftp) that was released under the GPL simply because it wanted to use readline.
Currently MySQL AB makes most of its money selling commercially licensed copies of MySQL. There are lots of companies that are interested in distributing MySQL without having to abide by (or even think about) the terms of the GPL, and these folks happily pay money for a commercially licensed copy of the MySQL server and client libraries. MySQL currently has contracts with both Innobase and Sleepycat that allows them to sell commercial licenses of the MySQL server with InnoDB and Sleepycat compiled in. This is what allows MySQL AB to be able to distribute a non-GPLed version of the MySQL server. With Oracle owning both Innobase and Sleepycat my guess is that when it comes time to renegotiate these contracts that Oracle will raise the price substantially. Unfortunately for MySQL AB, without these transaction engines MySQL isn't really much of a competitor. First of all, ACID transactions would be gone completely, as would essentially all of the new features that are available in 5.0. The reality of the situation is that the only real reason to pay for MySQL is to be able to distribute the Innobase stuff under a commercial license. When Oracle bought Innobase the MySQL folks started to look seriously at replacing Innodb with Sleepycat's engine, but that's really not a possibility now.
In the long run Oracle's schemes aren't likely to help. Databases are becoming a commodity, and there is little that Oracle can do about it. MySQL gets all of the press now, but that's simply because MySQL AB does a good job marketing MySQL, and not because MySQL is the best Free Software database. In the short run, this change is likely to have a pretty devastating effect on MySQL AB. MySQL AB has been very successful in marketing MySQL, and that has made the difference. Without a useful commercial product that it can sell MySQL AB is going to have a much harder time making money and it is going to have to go back to the drawing board and create its own transaction engine. That gives the rest of the Free Software databases some time to grow, and it gives Oracle a little more time to enjoy the status quo before it has to come up with a long term strategy against Free Software databases.

The hype + way more users. by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:42 · Score: 1

And lets not forget all the OSS software that requires MySQL and won't work with Postgres. How short sighted can you get?

Just try finding good free blogging software that works with Postgres. It ain't there. Moveable type works with Postgres, but you have to pay for it. The other big ones are MySQL only.

Hopefully this causes some people to take database independence a little more seriously.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Re:The hype + way more users. by Jason+Earl · 2006-02-15 05:25 · Score: 1

Oh no, my blog software is going to be stuck with MySQL's limited ability forever! The horror!
I am a huge PostgreSQL bigot, but that doesn't mean that I think that personal blog software needs any sort of fancy storage software. Seriously, anything more than plain text files is probably overkill.
As for database independence, why in the world should you worry about that? PostgreSQL offers pretty much all of the functionality that you are likely to need, and it's Free Software available under the ridiculously liberal BSD license. If you are writing software that would be easier to write using PostgreSQL's features, then you would be a fool to worry about "database independence." You might as well just marry your application to PostgreSQL and be done with it. These days it isn't hard to find hosting that offers PostgreSQL. If some other fool wants to find a way to rewrite your application so that it runs on less capable databases then let them waste their time. Most "database independence" projects basically end up treating all databases as if they were as limited as MySQL, and that's just a big fat waste of time.
The only time that you should *ever* worry about database independence is when you are selling a product that folks might want to run on whatever database system they like best. Then you get the joy of rewriting large parts of PostgreSQL's functionality in your application. What's more, chances are very good that you aren't as talented as Tom Lane, so your implementation will be crappy. The upside is that people will pay you to do this.
Re:The hype + way more users. by Omnifarious · 2006-02-15 05:45 · Score: 1

The ridiculously liberal BSD license is my biggest problem with Postgress, and a reason I will avoid using it or targetting it with anything I write.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:The hype + way more users. by Jason+Earl · 2006-02-15 05:58 · Score: 1

The ridiculously liberal BSD license is my biggest problem with Postgress, and a reason I will avoid using it or targetting it with anything I write.

What? That doesn't make any sense at all. I can understand people who make sure that they software that "they" write is under some other license than a BSD-style license. Perhaps they want to guarantee end users the right to access and modify the source code (GPL) or perhaps they want to be able to charge for licenses (commercial), or whatever, but the BSD-style licenses are perfect for software that you wish to *use*. You can even reuse BSD-style licensed software with your GPL or commercial software.
What precisely is your concern with BSD-style licensed code?
Re:The hype + way more users. by Omnifarious · 2006-02-15 06:57 · Score: 1

My time and attention to the project represent a contribution. I avoid contributing to BSD licensed projects because of the high likelihood of my investment being co-opted and used to push a technology that makes things more closed.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:The hype + way more users. by Jason+Earl · 2006-02-15 07:34 · Score: 1

Thanks for the clarification. That makes sense. BSD projects do tend to end up with commercial variants. On the other hand, BSD projects like PostgreSQL also tend to end up with GPL variants. Quite a bit of the stuff at pgfoundy.org can't be included in the base PostgreSQL distribution simply because it would require PostgreSQL be distributed under the GPL.
As long as Tom Lane works for Red Hat I am not particularly concerned that the commercial variants will be substantially better than the BSD licensed core, but there certainly is a risk that the future development of PostgreSQL will happen primarily in a commercial variant.
On the other hand, there is now at least one example of a project that is available under the GPL (MySQL) that is likely to have serious problems similar problems. If you are someone that has a serious investment in MySQL + InnoDB you probably should be very concerned about future development. There is little question that MySQL AB is going to be distracted while it tries to find a way to replace InnoDB without something that it can license commercially going forward.
Having the source code makes these sorts of decisions less risky, but it doesn't do away with the risk altogether.
Re:The hype + way more users. by Omnifarious · 2006-02-15 09:27 · Score: 1

I suspect they may be able to manage without having to have a relicensable InnoDB or BDB. As I understand it, they sell the interface code under a commercial license so that programs can link that in without having to be released under the GPL. So, I suspect their business model is mostly safe.

But yes, that is a worry. If something happens that is a more serious threat to their business model than future versions of the engine being proprietary, they may have to change business models, and that would be a huge upheaval.

Given what you say about the GPL extensions making things harder for people who would try to fork development into a closed source variant, I may have to look at PostgresSQL again.

I have a tendency to avoid databases in general though for other technical reasons. I don't like the fragmentation of namespace they represent. I think it creates undue administration hassles, and is otherwise painful to work with. If I got paid to do whatever I felt like, I might put some time into trying to bring filesystems to a point where they could compete with SQL databases for some of the things those databases are good at.

But, I have ocassion to recommend SQL databases to people who feel they absolutely must have them, so I'll reconsider PostgresSQL now.

--
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Re:The hype + way more users. by Jason+Earl · 2006-02-15 11:12 · Score: 1

It's still pretty easy to fork PostgreSQL into a commercial offering. I don't want to mislead you. In fact, several of the larger PostgreSQL companies do precisely that. Mammoth, EnterpriseDB, and others all have commercial variants of PostgreSQL, and just about everyone in PostgreSQL core is employed by someone that has a commercial PostgreSQL variant. That's part of the reason that GPLed code ends up outside of PostgreSQL core.
On the plus side, it seems to work fairly well having the talent split up this way. The fact that there are commercial variants isn't such a big deal to me as long as the BSD code keeps getting updated. In the end that's really what it's all about. Basing your work on GPLed software that isn't being updated is worse than basing your work on a piece of BSD software that is being updated, even if there is a chance that commercial variants will draw away important resources. This is especially true if the GPled software is like MySQL where there is little community involvement in the development of the server, and the company makes its money selling a commerically licensed variant.
There is no question that the BSD version of PostgreSQL continues to improve at a dramatic rate, and the fact that several companies are involved in the development of PostgreSQL is nice as well.
Re:The hype + way more users. by metallic · 2006-02-16 14:54 · Score: 1

Hopefully this causes some people to take database independence a little more seriously.

Why? I managed to port my company's intranet application from MySQL to PostgreSQL in one day. I started this morning and by the end of the day I had it completely ported to PostgreSQL. It's rather foolish to try to abstract away the database completely. The better approach is to abstract your sql away into a seperate layer. Then the core of your application truly doesn't care.

--
Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.

Generic driver = Dead MySQL AB. by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:48 · Score: 1

MySQL AB gets their money by licensing MySQL for commercial use. If Oracle went GPL only, it would kill their Non-GPL version, and without that money, a lot of the development would dry up.

Releasing a driver under an OSS license would be nice, but you already have one. Doing one under a BSD or LGPL license would also kill MySQL because now no one would need to buy the licensed version from MySQL AB.

I don't think this is a problem for us, in the worst case MySQL stops advancing and people start paying more attention to database interoperability, which they should be doing anyway.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

Yes, but by vlad_petric · 2006-02-15 02:57 · Score: 1

Software != books. Sure, such analogies probably influence a judge as far as precedent is concerned, but it's still a very far stretch.

--

The Raven

Re:Yes, but by jbolden · 2006-02-15 03:11 · Score: 1

Without black letter law indicating that congress wants software treated differently than books precedent on books will determine the treatment for software. There isn't a body of case law for software yet, but a precedent like this is exactly what a judge is going to be looking for.

MySQL is also a closed source competitor as well. by autopr0n · 2006-02-15 02:58 · Score: 1

MySQL sells closed-source licensed version of MySQL which are pretty expensive. If you have the GPL'd MySQL, you have to use the GPL'd client libraries, and you have to GPL all your code that links to them. If you don't want to do that, you pay a license fee. In order to do that, MySQL has to buy closed source licenses to Innobase and Sleepycat. Now that money is going right into Oracle's pockets, and Oracle can jack up prices whenever they want.

So MySQL is kinda screwed, but they wern't very smart about keeping their codebases secure. They should have bought these companies when they had the cash.

--
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.

no, they're killing competitors by swschrad · 2006-02-15 03:03 · Score: 1

and tightening the channel. same thing that symantec does when they buy another tools/antivirus vendor, they kill a competing brand, offer one cost-of-media upgrade to the users, and RIF the staff. except for maybe one or two wonks.

oracle is taking out competitors.

--
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?

Re:no, they're killing competitors by srelnino · 2006-02-15 04:41 · Score: 1

this deal is not abt tech. oracle can build whatever they want with the resources they have. this deal is abt consolidation.

All your base... by seigel · 2006-02-15 03:08 · Score: 1

All your base are belong to us! Doh!

Go use BDB first, then come back. by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-15 04:22 · Score: 1

That's like saying samba competes with oracle because they both let you store data. You can pretend anything is competition if look at it from a rediculously abstract perspective. That doesn't make it true though, it just means you are ignoring the details.

Re:Go use BDB first, then come back. by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-15 10:48 · Score: 1

No, it's looking at how the market works instead of the technology, which is how any reletively smart business person is going to see things. If you have people in your market that are deciding between your product and another, those products are competing for marketshare no matter what the workings behind them are.

BDB and Oracle work in very different ways, but they both still store data. It's perfectly concievable that some PHB might want Oracle just because they know the name while BDB is a much better choice. In this scenario, they're competing against each other.
Re:Go use BDB first, then come back. by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-15 13:53 · Score: 1

No, its not perfectly concievable at all, that's what I am saying. Its just as rediculous and inconcievable as wanting to use exchange instead of oracle. I'm sure there is someone, some where that is that stupid, but that doesn't mean those are competing products.

Any relatively smart business person will look at what market the products are in to decide if they compete or not. They will not ask every retard that has ever lived if they might confuse the two products purposes.
Re:Go use BDB first, then come back. by spectre_240sx · 2006-02-15 14:12 · Score: 1

Its just as rediculous and inconcievable as wanting to use exchange instead of oracle.

Ok, now you're just being ridiculous. I'm done with this.
Re:Go use BDB first, then come back. by Some+Random+Username · 2006-02-15 16:03 · Score: 1

"Ok, now you're just being ridiculous."

No, the thread started out ridiculous, that's what I've been saying.

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by saleenS281 · 2006-02-15 04:26 · Score: 0

I congratulate you sir. You have just said 'perfect' and 'oracle' in the same sentence, not used it in a derogatory fashion, and managed to keep a straight face. That takes talent.

Re:Interesting .... Clap Clap by ckaminski · 2006-02-15 04:34 · Score: 1

One of the better written trolls I've read in a long time...

Huzzah!

Chairman by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 05:00 · Score: 0

Chairman - is that you Steve Ballmer?

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is by jbplou · 2006-02-15 11:38 · Score: 1

I don't think you can prove that MySQL outperforms Oracle in most situations on good hardware.

Everybody has it wrong by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-15 13:11 · Score: 0

This has little or nothing to do with MySQL.

Why is Berkeley DB so popular? Because the folks there had the foresight to envision a need for a lightweight embedded transactional database engine. That was in the past. The only thing that really matters to any forward looking business, and that includes Oracle, is the future. What has Sleepycat been up to? A lightweight embedded XML database: DB XML. MySQL is not a threat, because the whole premise of what they are doing will soon be an anachronism. The current center of the IT universe is OASIS. Guess what kind of technology you need to play in that space? XML databases.

The F/OSS community is now left with only two real contenders: eXist and maybe QEXO. Both need stinkin' java. Neither does XML Schema validation. DB XML was the F/OSS communities most advanced native XML database. And Oracle just bought it.

This is a huge setback for F/OSS. If you don't understand the importance of distributed XML applications, you're just not going to understand this. If you do, you should be crying.

Does it have to be a conspiracy? by ecloud · 2006-02-15 14:44 · Score: 1

I don't understand how Oracle can possibly eliminate open-source software. Forking it is not a drawn-out process - it's as easy as copying the current source into a different subversion/CVS server if necessary, and going on from there. That's assuming that Oracle would even try to prevent the direct continuation of the existing development process. And even if they wanted to, could they legally change the license?

What if they just want to get some more revenue by offering paid support for BDB? Sleepycat has been profitable for a long time now.

Maybe Oracle fears their own product could become irrelevant in certain markets, and they want to diversify.

Here they come right out and say that BDB complements their existing product line, and they will continue to develop and support it, and they do not plan to change the license.

I'm not sure exactly how good this deal will be for Oracle, but I think y'all are getting pretty carried away with the conspiracy theories. Seems to me it will continue to be business as usual for anybody (commercial or not) who's using BDB.

I also continue to wonder why MySQL is so much more popular than PostgreSQL (or is it still so much more popular?) I like PostgreSQL better because there are no questions about it being 100% free software, and it has had advanced features for such a long time already that MySQL is only recently getting around to implementing. If people feel icky about having Oracle associated in this indirect way, it's just one more reason to switch.

Oracle wanted to buy MySQL also. MySQL declined. by Anonymous Coward · 2006-02-16 00:31 · Score: 0

The best way to beat competition is to buy it.

Apparently not all open source companies are for sale. MySQL turned down an offer by Oracle. Read more here:

http://www.people4objects.org/

On the bright side ... by Sir+Runcible+Spoon · 2006-02-23 01:09 · Score: 1

... the world now knows what a good RDBMS MySQL is.

Oracle may do it's best to cripple it now, but people are suddenly waking up to the fact that even Oracle believes that other people have been producing a better product. Time to look more seriously at the alternatives.

CmdrTaco in the news by larry+bagina · 2006-02-27 19:45 · Score: 1

HOLLAND, Michigan -- A Holland man allegedly told police last week that he likes to drink the urine of adolescent boys.

Rob Malda, 29, is in jail after allegedly telling Holland, Michigan, police about his affection for urine.

Police said Malda goes to family restaurants and movie theaters and waits for boys in a bathroom stall. Investigators said he shuts off the water to the child-level urinal and puts a cup in the bottom.

"He goes back and retrieves the cup and drinks the urine," Detective Ron Fithen said.

Malda allegedly told police that he leaves the stall after the child leaves.

Fithen interviewed Malda after he was arrested while leaving a movie theater last weekend.

"Listening to him describe it, it's like listening to a crack or cocaine addict. He's addicted to children's urine," Fithen said.

According to police, Malda said he's been drinking urine for years.

"He told us he's been doing it over 20 years, since he was 7 years old," Fithen said.

Police said Malda told them it makes him sick, but that it's almost spiritual to him. He allegedly added, "I like it because it makes me closer to them -- like I'm drinking their youth."

A Hudsonville, Michigan, father played a role in Malda's arrest. He told someone at a movie theater that Malda was staring at his son in the bathroom. The theater employee then called police.

Officials said Malda is a registered sexual predator, who was convicted of child molestation 10 years ago.

Police believe Malda has been collecting and drinking urine in local cities, including Zeeland, Hudsonville, Georgetown, Saugatuck and Holland.

--
Do you even lift?

These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

403 comments