Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL Ends Enterprise Server Source Tarballs

Posted by Zonk on from the new-tactic-in-open-sorcery dept.

vboulytchev writes "The folks at MySQL has quietly announced that it will no longer be distributing the MySQL Enterprise Server source as a tarball. It's been about a year since the split between the paid and free versions of the database project. The Enterprise Server code is still under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and as a result MySQL appears to be making it harder for non-customers to access the source code. 'One of the things that many users worry about is whether they're getting an inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version. Urlocker says that MySQL "wants to make sure the Community version is rock solid," but admitted that the company has introduced features into the Community edition of the software that "[weren't] as robust as we thought, and created some instabilities." Because of that, the company is revising its policies about when features go into the Community releases.'" Update: 08/10 04:56 GMT by CN :While it is slightly harder to get, the source isn't closed by any means, so I updated the title to reflect that.

15 of 413 comments (clear)

  1. The source hasn't gone anywhere. by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://mysql.bkbits.net/ is still there, and AFAIK it isn't going away anytime soon.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  2. Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    MySQL versions 5.0.38 to 5.0.45 have had such major bugs that they have rendered themselves useless for a huge range of applications. Applications that use dates, or ones that expect the database to *NOT* insert random NULL values in a group by query.

    I mean, even the most basic test suite would have easily caught these.

    Here are just a few of the major ones:
    Bug #28336
    Bug #28936

  3. Yes, it's legal by Carnildo · · Score: 3, Informative

    Before anyone bitches about it, this is perfectly legal. The GPL only requires you to provide source code to people who you also provide the compiled software to. You just can't restrict what they in turn do with the source code, which is why most GPL developers make the source code available to everyone and their dog.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    1. Re:Yes, it's legal by jeaton · · Score: 3, Informative

      Scenario: Let's say company X takes some super-cool GPL code, modifies that code, but only offers that modified code to customers paying for the binaries. Of course, in order to get the privilege of paying for the binaries, you have to sign a contract commercially stating you won't ask for the code, and/or you won't distribute that code. Thus, Company X can now charge for modified GPL code, without breaking the terms of the GPL for not distributing their modified code back to the community at large, since the only folks getting the binaries are people they have binding commercial contracts with... This is explicity forbidden by the GPL, in section 6:

      You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
  4. This is no big deal. by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's right in keeping with the GPL. The GPL doesn't say "you have to give the source to all and sundry." No, they just have to give the source code to those they gave the binaries to, i.e., their paying customers.

    The work-around for the community is hinted at here:

    "Though MySQL AB will not be distributing the source tarball, Urlocker says that MySQL isn't going to try to stop distribution of Enterprise Server source by others. "If somebody wants to, that's fine. People can distribute it.... "

    Getting the source code as a tarball on a public server for everyone is an intellectual exercize for the reader.

    I read this as a "We're not going to be hosting for leeches. You want a public server, set your own up"

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:This is no big deal. by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 3, Informative

      Not technically correct. They can limit giving the source code to only their customers if and only if they provide the source code along with the binaries. If they provide the source code seperately, then the GPL requires them to offer the source code to any third party that asks for it for at least 3 years from their last binary distribution. This is because any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source even if they didn't get it directly from MySQL AB.

  5. Re:Cha-Ching by larry+bagina · · Score: 5, Informative

    They are planning an IPO.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  6. Re:Wait a second.... by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Informative

    If they provide the source code along with the binaries, the GPL considers that to have satisfied their obligations. After that, they're not obliged to give the source code to anybody else. Not even customers.

    Now, if they don't provide the source code with the binaries, if customers are obliged to get it separately from the binary package, then the obligation is to provide the source to anybody who asks for it, customer or not, and that obligation lasts for 3 years after the last binary was distributed. Note that if the binaries are available via download, offering the source for download at the same time and from the same page satisfies the GPL's requirement to provide source along with the binaries even if the customer doesn't actually download the source code at the time.

  7. Re:Wait a second.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Yeah, those damn MySQL idiots are acting just like this crazy Emacs hippie back in the 80s... what was his name... Richard Stallman I think. Anyway, the greedy bugger only distributed the source to people who bought the software! Even though it was GPL'd! And the FSF did nothing!

  8. Re:You've misread the terms by penix1 · · Score: 3, Informative

    You are spot on with one problem....

    Code that was "contributed" doesn't belong to MySQL but to the individual authors. Unless they have something assigning the rights to MySQL (always a possibility since I don't use MySQL I wouldn't know) those copyrights still belong to the authors of that code. In short, they would still need the "official" OK in some form from the authors (ALL of them) of the code. That is why a license change is always something to be avoided where GPL is concerned.

    --
    This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
  9. Re:In related news by utopianfiat · · Score: 4, Informative

    fuck you zonk!
    no, I've had enough of your bullshit! take this goddamn article down right fucking now and change the title you worthless fucking excuse for a yellow journalist! For fucksake you READ the goddamn article before you post it, I HOPE.
    Fucking immune from moderation troll-assed motherfucker, I will sacrifice my "excellent" karma to bring you down!

    --
    +5, Truth
  10. Re:Say what? by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Informative

    The title does not accurately reflect the summary or the real state of affairs. It is sensationalist in the extreme.

    --
    Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
  11. Re:You've misread the terms by Decibel · · Score: 4, Informative

    MySQL requires code contributions to be re-assigned to MySQL AB, so AFAIK they actually own every last line of code. Which of course means that they are free to do anything they want, including close-source the whole thing.

  12. not quite by infonography · · Score: 5, Informative

    The issue isn't that they are keeping what they made. They didn't make it all since they used stuff others had contributed under a certain condition. That being Open Source. The open source model is that you let others help you build the software. To close the source they would have to comb back through the contributions of other people over the years and take out all OS code that is what they didn't pay for in-house. Otherwise they would have to rewrite a whole new system from scratch and walk away from the MySQL code base as it stands.

    It's like getting divorced and your ex gets only the second floor and the garage.

    --
    Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
  13. Re:In related news by wwahammy · · Score: 4, Informative

    While the response is a bit... over the top, the sentiment is understandable. MySQL is not closing off its source. It's just choosing not to distribute the source code for one version of its product in one way. It doesn't violate the GPL in any way and if you still really want the source you can get it from their repository.

    Zonk's title isn't even remotely related to the reality of the situation. If I could mod him down, I sure would.