Slashdot Mirror
MySQL Ends Enterprise Server Source Tarballs
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.
MySQL announced plans for a new BitTorrent based distributed backend.
After Bittorrent yesterday is this a trend that we should be worried about, or really just 2 separate instances?
-nick
Buh-bye... was fun while it lasted!
Look at ME! I'm MySQL! I'm a "real database!"
I don't suppose this is an attempt to get more money?
http://www.beanleafpress.com
Can we all just switch to Postgres now?
Cheap web hosting, I'm looking at you...
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
I wonder how many other projects will start pulling this -- get the world hooked on your product, and then close the source after you reach a critical mass of commercial users who are likely to pay versus those who would be prone to forking and taking over open development. I think it's ignorant to assume people will just take the last open version and fork it to continue being free - there are commercial users who will likely be quite happy to deal with the closed version they trust. Hell - look at sourceforge -- they closed off their source, and do you see companies installing the GNU fork of the code internally? No - they buy the commercial sourceforge. It'll be interesting to see how many companies follow this trend.
http://mysql.bkbits.net/ is still there, and AFAIK it isn't going away anytime soon.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Companies like redhat, SUSE, and even IBM are ALL suffering.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
... company is obviously designed to move people to buy the product that gives them more income.
This sounds just like the FUD that microsoft guy made by "admitting" that XP has problems in the hopes that people will move to vista.
I think it's best to simply ignore the marketing people. There are no "instabilities" in the stable community version above and beyond the normal cycle of bugs and bugfixes you see in any software.
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
Let me be the first to suggest UseToBeMySQL or NowItsNotYourSQL. Or better yet SoldOutMySQL. SQLMoneyWhore might not fly but then again offensive names don't seem to be a problem with open source (I'm thinking of GIMP).
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
My take: while MySQL has improved technically in leaps and bounds over the last couple of years, stuff like this (or having its transactional backends bought out from under it by Oracle) makes it increasingly difficult for me to recommend it as a business proposition to my clients. Meanwhile PostgreSQL continues to get the job done for the majority of my projects; I have a network of professionals who support it competently; and having followed the project since 2001 or so, I'm confident it's not going anywhere but forwards.
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.
It says that the source will no longer be shipped as a tarball. You now have to take it out of bitkeeper. IOW, you still get the source.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
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
If they own all the copyrights to the source, they can license it however they want.
Additionally, the requirements to release the source only apply to derivative works. In theory, the original copyright holder could put a binary release under the GPL without providing any source code.
Not a typewriter
Because they are the copyright holder and they are allowed to dictate whatever licensing terms they want for their own stuff. The GPL doesn't trump that. The only reason a person is obligated to put modifications to GPL'd code under the GPL is because that falls under the category of a derivative work and is thus subject to the copyright restrictions of the original. MYSQL, being their own code entirely, and not a derivative of somebody else's GPL'd project, can be put under whatever distribution terms and licensing they want... even closing up the source.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
after all, it is called MY SQL, not your SQL, or her SQL.
"The folks at MySQL has quietly..." thats just awful, I know we don't read the articles... but we aren't even reading the first sentence of the submission now?
They have to distribute the "Enterprise" source along with the "Enterprise" binaries. They do not have to ship the "Enterprise" source with the "Community" stuff. On I side note they say they will not stand between one of the "Enterprise" customers hosting the source. :)
AxXium
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.
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!
IANAL however to my knowledge, The GNU doesn't say you can't make a profit, only that the source code has to be available to your customers and all contributers to the project thus far have a say in any re-licensing and/or distribution.
AFAIK the IP holder retains the rights to whom it considers "customers" therefor decides whom may access the source based on who has legal rights to the product. Transgaming, RedHat, MySQL, et al.
My backup chemistry thesis stored on Data Storing Bacteria mutated; granting me a degree in forensic anthropology. v4sw7
it's illegal for you to take their code and do that, but the copyright holder can change the license any time- but old versions stay under their license.
Because the GPL only requires that you give source to those to whom you give or sell binaries.
Now, they can't prevent those to whom you give or sell binaries from redistributing it...
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Well, it appears they are already selling the Enterprise Server. And according to the article summary, they're still making it available to customers who purchase the binaries. As such, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL (remember, with the GPL you only have to make the source available to anyone you give the binaries to. It doesn't specify that you can't charge for the binaries, or that the source has to be made available on the web for anyone to get hold of. Note as well that you also don't have to provide the source with the binaries -- you simply have to make it available upon request in a suitably usable standard form).
Yaz.
....is on PostgreSQL. Good stuff!
The Army reading list
They own the copyright and can presumably to whatever they want. Certainly they won't waste time on the futile effort of trying to put the cat back in the bag--past source releases are out there for anyone to play with. But going forward, they don't have to release anything, and that will probably be enough to signal the death-knell for the open source version of the enterprise server. Typically with an open source "enterprise" app, the only people who know anything about what's going on in the code are under the employ of the company that wants to unfree it. It's very challenging and unrewarding for an outsider to try to pick up all the pieces and start where they left off, particularly since by definition the only people who are realizing incremental benefit are large enterprises making money off your free efforts. In that sense, I sympathize with companies who don't feel the pull of opening their enterprise applications. Why let some other capitalist make a buck off your hard work?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
There's nothing "closed" about the source to MySQL Enterprise Server. It's still under the GPL. MySQL AB is simply choosing not to make the source accessible from their ftp servers to the general public, which doesn't stop anyone else from choosing to distribute it themselves.
I think this is caused by people and companies not supporting open source with their wallets, but instead just paying lip service to it.
I work for an open source company and the number of calls we get from people demanding support for something they just downloaded from SourceForge has caused us to provide our paying customers with a different "priority" telephone number.
When we politely tell these people that we require they purchase a support package to receive telephone support, they usually get pissed off and hang up. Some try to convince you that they will buy support if we would *just* help them with this one little problem first, heh.
Don't get me wrong, the business model works, but if you have investors I can understand how they would want to close the source if they feel it would convert some of these non-paying customers into paying ones.
If only companies would look at the long-term and realize that if this free software saved us X-thousands of dollars, its well worth it to spend even 1/10th of the money they saved to support it and ensure its longevity. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way though.
Lots of OSS projects use Mysql. If they want to take their ball and go home, so bet it. we can take a tarball and create OurSQL.
Come on people this is what OSS is all about. forking and starting a new project because the current project leaders became poopwads.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
This is a common misconception. You CAN sell GPL code. The GPL specifically allows it. The only thing you must do is provide the source code (in one way or another) and the only thing you can't do is include additional restrictions.
As the other posters have pointed out, the copyright owner has the right to dual license the software (offer the software under more than one license). The GPL is not law, but an open ended contract. It is permission to copy the code if certain conditions are met. This doesn't mean that the copyright owner can give permission under other conditions as well.
On the other hand, who is the copyright owner of patches and bug fixes submitted to them? IANAL, but it would seem to me that this could be a legal problem. For example, Sun requires anybody working on/patching Open Office to have a record on file delegating copyright of patches back to Sun. If MySQL AB doesn't do something like this, how do they plan to fend off lawsuits? (frivolous or legitimate)
I won't join Slashcott. OTOH, If Beta goes live, I just won't be back until it's fixed. Sorry Dice.
They can not release their own code under the GPL and not release the source because the GPL itself is protected under copyright and trademark laws. By not releasing the source, then they are releasing under a different license but calling it GPL which dilutes the GPL trademark. They are free to distribute under the license of their choice, but they cannot change an existing license and call it the same thing. This would also be considered fraud, because the person receiving the binary would have a reasonable expectation that since it was advertised as GPL and GPL requires source that they advertised they would also provide the source code. If they want to make a new "MySQL" license that has 99% of the same things as the GPL with one or two restrictions, they are also free to do that, just don't try and call the new license GPL.
To answer the parent's parent, people distributing GPL code can charge whatever they want for the binary, the requirement is that they must also provide the source code with it, and cannot limit the distribution of the source except as provided by the GPL, so the first person buys it for $insane_dollars and then distributes the source to all his friends, family, and bittorrent. There is no requirement to make GPL code with no cost, it just has an inherent driving force that leads to that end
A MySQL fork: "OurSQL" or something like that
or
A general shift to PostgreSQL... seems a lot of people are favoring that route.
I don't care which way it goes, the community will respond and MySQL will become irrelevant.
Why couldn't these have happened at the end of March? Linux, GCC and Emacs to close source would have been fantastic April fools followups.
As the copyright holder, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL. It doesn't apply to them.
how to invest, a novice's guide
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.
"Fork you!"
Really, it's that simple when you have GPL software.
I am officially gone from
...the community version as a test bed for the enterprise version, which in that case it becomes clear that there is an imbalance or dismissal of the value of the community users, an abuse if you will.
The GPL was intended to remove such abuses. The GPL v3 is intended to do the same thing but in consideration of the fraud of software patents. But the point is clear, the GPL in general is to prevent abuses.
On the slip side, there is nothing preventing someone who has access to the enterprise version from making it available to the community users. Or would that be considered an abuse of a paying customer?
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! Anyone want to clue me in on what's going on there? And what all the yelling is about?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
By discouraging people from getting and using the Enterprise version, I feel less and less safe deploying it myself. Less users = less chances to catch problems. Less code = less review = less security.
I'm about to deploy 4 MySQL servers for some serious volume and was strongly considering buying into an enterprise package, largely on the strength of their monitoring tool, but now I'm seriously thinking it's time to try Postgres.
"One of the things that many users worry about is whether they're getting an
2 5
inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version."
They already have SCO, how much more inferior can they get.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/04/17302
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
I dont think anyone is really suprised.
PostgreSQL is still free and more powerful anyway so no great loss.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
They should rename it TheirSQL.
[[ DmD ]]
No, you can't. GPL and LGPL applications can't depend on proprietary libraries, unless those libraries are a standard part of the platform on which the application runs.
This is actually the tendence that worries me. These days many people (thankfully not everybody) think they have the RIGHT to get everything for free. One bitches because product X is not Open Source (Ohh what a crime!!!). The other bitches because X (which VERY GENEROUSLY was giving many years of hard work to people who don't even write a line of code) is taking their hard work back for Y reasons (yes, making a buck for many years of hard work is not a bad thing , you know)
Another funny thing: I was talking to a man here at work. The man is a a rabious defender of OS. He wouldn't touch a non- OS program, he almost cried when MS made a deal with Novell, he screams how much he hates Photoshop and how great Gimp is (just because is OS)... And guess what? He develops a very good backup solution for databases and he takes good money for it. He was having some difficulties adding features. Knowing how good of an OS supporter he was I had the nerve to suggest to him to open the source of his program. ARE YOU FUCKING MAD?- he said. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD I WORK FOR THIS SHIT? AND I WOULD GIVE IT TO THE DOGS?....
Moral of the story. If you work hard for your work and wnat to share , so be it. If you want to get your work back iand this is posible, just do it. You have the right. people will bitch, people will call you a shit, people will hate you... And yet, the majority of them won't share a shit either giving the oportunity.
Making money is not a crime folks....
It's time to realise that Abble's products are the biggest abomination these days. Just say NO to the dumb iAbble way!!
How about commercial framework + BSD apps? Or should I just classify everything as commercial and give away the source to the apps under some ambiguous license.
The point is I want to keep the good bits just for me but I don't care if other people use my stuff.
The parent's point is exactly true. Richard Stallman was selling copies of Emacs, using his own words "making a living" out of it, and proudly gives it as an example of a business model built around Free Software. Claims that MySQL AB violates the letter or the spirit of GNU GPL by charging money for the Enterprise version of its product are false and ignorant.
True enough -- admittedly as someone who doesn't typically have direct contact with DBMS', I didn't know if MySQL had contributors reassign copyright (that is, if they were the sole and only copyright holders for the work).
Note however that if they are distributing their own code to users with a GPL license attached, they still have to make sources available, otherwise their customers would have a license to redistribute the binary code, but without the ability to satisfy clause 3 of the license (which isn't necessarily improper, but would make the GPL attached to the distributed binaries moot). This appears to be what MySQL is indeed doing -- they're still providing source to their own customers.
If /. MySQL users are that incensed over this, they should start a fund to buy one copy of MySQL Enterprise Server, get the sources for it, and then host those sources themselves.
Yaz.
MySQL hasn't been a project for a long time (if ever)... it's a commercial application that happens to also be GPL'd. The vast majority of the development is done by MySQL AB, and other than users there isn't really much of a community. I'm not saying this is wrong, but MySQL isn't a project.
FreeBSD provides a good (non-database to avoid the flamewar) counter-point. While there are some commercial contributors, there is absolutely no commercial control of the project. What control does exist does so in the context of a meritocracy.
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.
You can do anything you want.
Of course, if you're doing what you say then you won't be giving people permission to redistribute the work.. so using the GPL would be pointless. If you don't want to do something that is pointless, you need to put the sample apps under the GPL + an exception for your libraries.
How we know is more important than what we know.
That's scary. I have a FAPP server at home.
If moderation could change anything, it would be illegal.
It's interesting to see how the community often openly promotes and vehemently defends an "open" piece of software but if the software starts to "close" then all the problems start coming out and suddenly it's a piece of @#$! The robustness of software doesn't change with a philosophy. It's all the in marketing. I mean if MySql were still open then we'd see posts comparing it against Microsoft's software. Now for "some reason" they're equivalent in the garbage bin. I will remember this indeed.
If OOXML is ratified as a standard I'm going to start distributing my source code in it. Of course I will be sure to use one of its undocumented "features" to make sure the code is totally inaccessible to anyone not using my proprietary text editor, which conveniently you can purchase for a mere $2k.
When you look at the licensing - and how unnecessarily complex it is, how open to interpretation free use is, etc.
Then when you look at the the history of mysql ab - how they used to tell developers that they didn't need referential integrity, didn't need transactions, etc - until they had them.
Then when you realize that this is a commercial organization - a for profit company. Then it should be apparent where this is all headed: They're growing a user base, and hope to tighten up the licensing and pull the profits in tomorrow.
ya... they sure seem to be struggling with that whole open source thing and making money...
I would guess your confused about the origin and intent of bittorent. Things like Distros and FSW are exactly what it's originator had in mind. What Bram Cohen intended was to make a system where low bandwidth could be multiplied to work around a central server download system. I am pretty sure that Al Gore didn't think it would all be pr0n when he invented the internet. Considering he is married to Tipper. Ok the last part was a joke.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
... meh. SQLite is better for "toy database" problems anyway. It's fast, it's free, it's Free, and it's very compact. For a lot of applications where people use MySQL, it will fit in with just a few little changes.
Sod MySQL, SQLite is the future.
now if it had been *Bill* that had invented the internet . . . :)
hawk, ducking again
No t-shirt :)
hawk
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
how about a centOS end run around this?
Grandparent poster said: "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."
:)
You replied: "And you, Sir, are not entirely correct. I cannot bend over MySQL AB by giving people binaries of MySQL."
But grandparent never claimed that you could "bend over" MySQL AB. He simply said that any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source. Which is true. If MySQL AB provided you with binaries and source, and you pass on the binaries, then they're off the hook, and you're on the hook, but that doesn't contradict anything that GP said. In fact, it was more or less his point. GP was entirely correct. And so were you, except where you claimed that he wasn't.
Of course, the GPL also allows another developer who has legally obtained the source to make a minor change and distribute the new version for free. While this may not have been a reasonable alternative when Emacs first came out ("Internet? Oh, mean you that network that links various universities?"), that has changed in the last 20 years.
Some corporations are smart enough to see this, some are not.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
A disruption in communication can mean only one thing...Invasion!
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logi c.html
:)
I suggest you take particular note of the sections labeled "Argumentum ad hominem", "Converse accident / Hasty generalization", "The fallacy of accident / Sweeping generalization / Dicto simpliciter", "Fallacy of division", and "Ignoratio elenchi". "Plurium interrogationum" and "The "No True Scotsman..." fallacy" may also be relevant.
Of course, no true slashdotter would bother to use logical arguments, so I guess you must be a true slashdotter!
It's okay. We've all had a drink or two and then posted.
Lemme get this right:
1) Someone hacks your account to post an expletive-rich-but-otherwise-not-inaccurate summary of Zonk's general moderating style.
2) You then ANONYMOUSLY claim the account was hacked, instead of attempting to verify your identity.
3) ???
4) Profit ???
(btw... lol! wish I had mod points, I wouldn't have had to post this crap.)
this is the real utopianfiat. the prior utopianfiat, who hacked the last utopianfiat, has been sacked.
"MYND YOV MOOSE BITES KAN BE PRETTI NASTI"
From what I can tell, the only real differences between Enterprise and Community is support. We run community version for major production databases with no issues whatsoever.
And we're not the only ones doing so. MySQL had really better re-think the whole thing, whats the point of offering Enterprise when 90% of shops are going to go with the free product.
Zonk, Zonk: 3P Plural nouns go with what verb tense? The course gets harder as we go along...
Development is programmable; Discovery is not programmable. (Fuller)
The last thing you want to hear about a DBMS is this line from MySQL: "the company has introduced features into the Community edition of the software that "[weren't] as robust as we thought, and created some instabilities"
This, among other reasons, is why we switched to Postgresql some years ago. MySQL was (is?) not even ANSI SQL compliant, at least when we were struggling with it.
Won't the real utopianfiat please stand up?
If someone has a business that respects the GPL AND makes a profit, then it's good for all of us. Building a successfull business around free software isn't exactly the easiest thing; we should actually encourage companies that pull it off. A healthy - profit making - indistry based on the GPL will attract more big players, which will attract more users, which in turn will lead to more GPL'ed software and more freedom.
MySQL AB is respecting both the GPL and its moral purpose, on top of being able to compete financially with closed source, 'tradicional' businesses. That's a Good Thing(tm)
Steve Ol' Boy says: We did "quit fucking around"...
MySQL requires code contributions to be re-assigned to MySQL AB, so AFAIK they actually own every last line of code.
Wow, that's really mean. Actually, a totally bastard thing to do. I don't know of any other opensource project that would dare to be such a douchebag towards contributors, and get away with it. How MySQL managed so far, is beyond me. Perhaps contributors were unaware of this clause, just like I was, before reading your post?
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
Someone posts an opinion that differs from that of a mod and are thus marked as a troll. Yay.
And for everyone using MySQL as a half-way serious DB, there's Firebird and PostgreSQL
What do you think of Firebird? I've been thinking of downloading and trying it out.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Hey, it works for me -- all of it. I started with MySQL 3.23 a bunch of years ago. From nothing, I learned enough to build large simple systems and complex small systems. Now, I build complex large systems; you better believe I'm sticking with MySQL for the long haul -- and I have no problem paying for it. I'm a business making money, I expect to pay suppliers for suppliers -- it's that simple. And for the record, I still dislike transactions and referential integrity being handled at the database level. It's handy, but it's unnecessary and rarely beneficial. It usually amounts to a limitation when everything's great, and then you want that trigger to do something complicated. And then you want that stored procedure to do something that your application does in one line of code, but requires a web-server, and your entire application, to do it.
Over the years, I've loved the simplicity of MySQL; I've loved the ease of installation; I've loved the low price -- sometimes no price; I've loved the upgrade pace. And like any good business, I stay one step behind.
I've built a successful business with MySQL as a backbone. They deserve my loyalty.
This is slashdot - I thought Python references got automatic +5 funny mods?!
People want to make money! Providing support is just not enough, you need to sell a product.
The GPL's (v3) own copyright is covered by this statement at the beginning:
Copyright (C) 2007 Free Software Foundation, Inc. <http://fsf.org/>
Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.
Legally speaking, the GPL can't practically restrict what the original copyright holder can do with their own code. What the AC reply implied was correct; the only group the copyright holder could sue is itself.
I haven't seen anything to indicate the FSF holds a registered trademark on the term "GPL". Citation to the contrary is welcome.
Not a typewriter
Hey Man, Invading Iraq was legal too. Doesn't mean your customers/the Iraqis will thank you for it.
Then again there's also Firebird, forgot whose codebase they used.
Firebird uses Borland's Interbase.
FalconShould there be a Law?
The FSF does the same thing...so if you contribute to any GNU project, you must assign your copyright to them. See this for details.
Tell the truth and you won't have so much to remember.
Wonder if we'll start seeing it referred to as My$QL on /. now?
You want fun, go home and buy a monkey!
From his earlier comment:
Finally it happend. XFree died but we've got X.Org fork. Looks like this "SQL interface to the filesystem" will die as same, but maybe even with no fork. Well, I am much happier on PostgreSQL for years already.
For me, as a developer that has used MySQL for some time, this is an action that destroys trust.
They say it is to keep too many versions of MySQL from being used, a lie that is so obvious
it would have been better if they hadn't said anything at all.
This, of course, isn't the first time i have begone to wonder about the ethics of the MySQL team,
the first was when they recreated their website, hiding the 'download' section in the 'comunity' section
and even then only after making you click a 'yes i'm a total über geek, i recompile my kernel every DAY!' button.
To me that means that i can no longer trust MySQL, i can no longer trust them to not sink to even lower tactics
to get us away from using MySQL under the GPL. Now i have to fear that they not only will they withhold features as
they already do, but that they will also intentionally introduce bugs and cripple performance just so they can then state
'well, with our NON-GPL commercial Enterprise license, that wouldn't have happened'
I liked MySQL because it was quick to setup and had reliable and scalable performance, i might be able to get
similar performance etc with PostgreSQL, but it will definitely not be simple to do simple things and
it requires constant tweaking and probably the blood of sacrificially slain goat to work reliable performance wise.
Now i might even consider using the 'light' (free) version of SQL Server and Oracle, even with thier limitations,
for many projects they are enough, and for those that aren't, i now at least don't have to explain
how and why MySQL is a 'real' database engine, i can simply say,
'sure, oracle, i can do that, it will cost lot's more, but yea'
Is there hope that some one will take the source as it's now and create a new GPL branch without the
commercial BS?
MySQL requires code contributions to be re-assigned to MySQL AB
/. yesterday)
Then why on earth are we calling it open source?
Every time a product starts to get good, some greedy fugknuckle on the project decides to close the source. We've seen it again and again. Here are the ones the come to mind:
FICS - Free Internet Chess Server
DD-WRT - Firmware for Linksys router
CDDB - Distrubted CD catalogue system
BitTorrent - File transfer (on
Now MySQL
I'm sure others could add plenty more examples. Anyone who committed to developing or using these products because the were FOSS has been badly burned.
I think this is becoming a bigger threat to open source than any other and it certainly puts me off contributing anything. For goodness sake don't call it open if they have the ability to close it off legally at any moment.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
The pressure on mysql to constantly offer new features, instead of focusing on mysql's strengths, which is highspeed, a decent group of features and simplicity to maintain and operate is going to cost mysql in the long run. This is only the start. The new features in mysql 5+ such as stored procedures, triggers, functions etc are very poorly implemented and come nowhere near the full implementations of databases like Oracle and Postgresql. The result is that DBAs and developers who like mysql for its easy maintenance and speed end up being disillusioned when problems start cropping up.
I don't think many places would switch to Postgresql, since the administration side is more complex and therefore more costly, but I can see shops weighing the pros and cons of switching to postgresql, since that DB has an excellent reputation.
The last thing you want to hear about a DBMS is this line from MySQL: "the company has introduced features into the Community edition of the software that "[weren't] as robust as we thought, and created some instabilities"
..."
... Oh, and look what we got here, a real company with stockshares and all to back it up! ... Btw, I happen to have this neat bargain for you right here ..."
Yepp, that's the last thing you want to hear. However this is most likely to be marketing/buy-our-enterprise-version-to-be-safe marketing FUD targeted at MySQL experienced developers who want to keep a strait face when their boss asks them about the real true stability of MySQL. "Are you really really sure it's stable? How can you guarantee it?" - "Well, we could get this new Enterprise super-safe version
MySQL AB wants to morph into a company more like Oracle or SAP, which for a decade now have not been paid bucketoads of cash for technology (that's everywhere by now) but for taking over responability. I can't really blame them, as it's the safest and fastest way to make money in the industry.
"Look, the OSS version is (at Version 5.x) suddenly starting to get a bit buggy, you better get our neat Enterprise version.
I cry FUD.
The truth is MySQL is a very mature product (as much as you can call a product that uses SQL 'mature'). It's not really been a classic RDBMS until 5.x which makes being mature a tad moot, but the people are used to using it and *are* using it for tons of products. If someone introduces hacks that cause serious trouble, people would notice right away. It's not that if Linus puts hacks into the kernel that everything comes crashing down in an instant (recent Scheduler debate anyone?). It's most likely to be the exact same with MySQL and other projects.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Emacs has been officially available for download over the Internet for quite a while. Unfortunately, the earliest version I have is from February 1987, but it includes instructions for obtaining Emacs via FTP and UUCP, as well as information on purchasing a copy on tape. (Wikipedia says that Stallman began writing GNU Emacs in 1984, so this is a fairly early version). The specified host prep.ai.mit.arpa can no longer be accessed under that name, but prep.ai.mit.edu still distributes Emacs.
Except everything you said in your post isn't the goal of Free and open source software.
The goal isn't:
- To make a profit
- To become popular
- To attract the attention of larger companies
The goal of Free and Open Source Software is to keep the freedoms that allow you to use, modify and re-distribute. Restricting those freedoms in the name of attaining the goals you mentioned above would be completely missing the point of free and open source software, don't you think?
Now there are exceptions to this (although some hardcore GNU people will disagree). For example Ubuntu including proprietary graphics drivers so that it becomes more popular with their Goal of one day having a free and open driver to be able to switch to, when it becomes stable enough.
The things you mentioned above are nice but they should not be prioritised over the most important thing which is freedom. What MySQL has done is created a fracture in their own community between those who pay and those who don't.
I also noticed you need to use bitkeeper to download their source code, not exactly a company that embraces open source software...
While I'm not doing database stuff currently, last time I was a year or two ago, I actually saw this coming and opted for Postgres rather than MySQL.
Postgres is a fantastic project. It's very solid, can handle huge transaction/request loads, has concurrent locking etc, from memory supports a large number of different datatypes, and is also very configurable. Even better, it's under what is my own favourite license, the BSD license...so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
MySQL will probably continue to have its' place, with people who need the things they're charging for, (presumably support options etc) and I wish the project well.
However, for people like me who don't have a lot of money, MySQL ceased being an entirely legally safe option a while ago.
New versions of Python, and PHP, are including SQLite as part of the standard distribution. And if SQLite isn't enough, there's alwasy PostgreSQL.
Considering the MySQL AB's unusual understanding of the GPL, their goofy dual license, their non-standard implementation of SQL, and their partnership with a company that claims the GPL is illegal (scox); I really have to wonder if MySQL is the way to go anymore.
MySQL has also partnered with scox. Scox is a msft puppet. Scox has loudly claimed that the GPL is unconstitutional, and scox has written congress an open letter about it.
Scox seems a strange bedfellow for a company whose flagship product is built on the GPL.
The new versions of those languages, anyway.
The FSF could sue not for the source on the software, but for distributing a non-verbatim copy of the GPL license itself. The wording of the license is a copyrighted work that can not be copied without permision. The copyright holder of the software is free to license their software however they want, but they are not allowed to use the GPL as a license unless they agree to terms of the GPL.
A trademark is not required to be registered to be effective. If it is registered then it prevents the original holder from having the purden of proof that the mark is associated with their name and product. I think that their might be enough copies of the GPL license in use to establish that the GPL name is associated with the GPL license.
She wasn't your girlfriend, she would just play D&D at the same table as you as long as the Mountain Dew and Cheetos were free and abundant
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The FSF could sue not for the source on the software, but for distributing a non-verbatim copy of the GPL license itself.
I don't see how that could possibly work. A company trying this tactic can easily distribute a verbatim copy of the GPL, thus fulfilling obligations on the copyright for the text of the license. Since there is no section in the GPL that requires the original copyright holder to release the source (since there's no practical way for the GPL to do that), they could easily meet all requirements of the GPL while still distributing a verbatim copy.
The trademark attempt might work, but without being registered it becomes much harder to hold up in court.
Not a typewriter
Have i just mis-read the GNU license?
Yes you have, if you distribute binaries, you are required to provide the source code to the binaries to the entities you have distributed to, but you are not required to provide the source to anyone who merely wants it; and you are not required to do it for free. You can charge a reasonable copying fee, and it's entirely possible to make considerable money off copying fees, considering the horrendous copying fees people have to pay for court transcripts, how far do you think a law suit would get?
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
It almost seems an attempt at sadistic humor that Connector/J on Linux translates camelCase object names to CAPS, but Connector/J on Windows does not, which they've paired with respectively case-sensitive and non-case-sensitive versions of MyISAM.
GAH.
The best option for asynchronous PostgreSQL replication is Slony-I. It's extremely flexible and so far has proven to work very well. The devs supporting it are also very good. I do admit that there is a bit of a learning curve to get it configured and running, but this is something they are working on for the next major revision.
If you need to cluster PostgreSQL, have a look at pgpool and pgpool-II.
Because distributing the GPL license verbatium and not distributing the source code would be considered fraud. The preamble of GPL(v2) states " that you receive source code or can get it if you want it". If they do not change that statement but refuse to release the source code then they have commited fraud by stating that they would grant you source code with the program. If they change that statement then they have violated the copyright of the GPL license by not using it verbatium. My argument is that distributing something labeled as GPL without providing the source code can not be done legally. Either they violate the copyright which opens them up to legal action from the FSF, OR not fullfilling a license contract with the end user and opening them up to legal action from the end user. You can't just include a verbatium copy of the license and say it does not apply if you are making public statements that you are releasing that software under a GPL license.
Because that's a popular term to describe software distributed under an OSI-approved license.
how to invest, a novice's guide
This is the usual tempest in a teapot. MySQL is in no way, as I read the article, not complying with OSS requirements. As someone elsewhere pointed out, even if MySQL doesn't distribute the tarball, any of their customers who have it can do so. So it's hardly restricting access to the tarbell. It's merely an organizational move to clearly delineate the Enterprise product from the Community product.
To illustrate the stupidity one hears in these discussions, one idiot at another OSS site said that nobody should use PostgreSQL - or even test it - because their BSD-style license allowed companies to take the code and use it and not release their proprietary enhancements. This is the sort of stupid fanaticism that gives "free" and OSS software a bad name to anyone with a brain.
These morons don't realize that some licenses were explicitly designed to allow just that - companies to develop their own products on top of OSS. This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Although giving back enhancements to an OSS product to the original project is a benefit to everyone who uses that product, not EVERY enhancement is necessarily worth it and not EVERYBODY in the world needs to be a "free software" developer. It allows OSS products to find their way into more and more products, thus validating the OSS model - even if some companies do not adhere to it strictly. If the alternatives are a company using OSS and not returning improvements to the community vs not using OSS at all, obviously the latter is worse. And that is the choice companies must make.
Whether the former choice has any impact on the development of OSS is another matter entirely. The notion that somehow the entire corporate world is going to "steal" OSS and somehow convert it all to proprietary products and thus "destroy" OSS is utterly ridiculous on the face of it.
This is why Linus opposes the GPLv3 and he is correct to do so. It's the difference between a truly free market and socialism.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
The forums are primarily a user to user channel, not a you ask MySQL channel. Same for the IRC channel on Freenode. In both cases some employees do answer questions as an incidental part of their job. None are paid specifically to answer the questions on the forums. If it's a quiet week I might spend an hour or so doing it.
You're not paying 500 solely for access to the knowledgebase. Among other things, you're paying for the ability to ask me a question and get an answer from someone who's run MySQL on a billion plus query per day top ten site on the internet. That is: not your usual time-wasting support but someone with a clue who's used it in the real world.
MySQL doesn't own the copyright to libreadline and InnoDB. It's a reuser of those components. As such it's choosing to comply with its GPL obligations to those licensors by using clause 3a and distributing the source to just those who it gives the binaries to. Those people can than freely pass it on to others if they wish and MySQL is well aware of this.
I don't disagree with that. However, a good sign of the decline of a product is when the number of moderators and contributors willing to answer questions on public forums declines. Especially if you're locking up the knowledgebase, you're just making answers harder to find which leads to an increase in overall customer dissatisfaction and negative impressions.
Companies like Oracle, Microsoft and Google have staff who aggressively answer questions in their public forums precisely for this reason. I have no idea if they're paid to do so, but I'm sure they're encouraged to do so. If they do this voluntarily then, wow, that must say something about their attitude toward their customers.
So, tell me, what is it about MySQL AB culture which leads to people like you, who don't see it as part of their jobs to answer public user-to-user forums and expect that if people want a quality answer to a question about the product, no matter how simple, then they should pay for it.
That's the downward spiral I'm talking about...MySQL AB's inner culture and attitudes towards the end users has deteriorated and become rotten. They haven't properly struck a balance between making money off of costumers and providing good FREE support.
...are, in my limited experience, consistently sleazy.
They phoned me up within an hour of downloading the community version and tried to make me afraid of the community version. They hinted that it's less stable than the for-profit version they're selling and that I'd be much happier if I spent the money on the more reliable Enterprise version with their support package.