Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Monty Wants To Save MySQL

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the take-backsies-are-hard dept.

An anonymous reader writes "It seems as if the MySQL author is trying hard to win back control over MySQL. In his blog he calls upon the MySQL users to 'Help keep the Internet free' by signing his petition. He fears that if Oracle buys Sun they automatically get MySQL which would spell doom for the project. But I have have mixed feelings with this call for help, because after all — who sold MySQL in the first place?"

38 of 371 comments (clear)

  1. yay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...First at last

    For the sake of topic titles, I'd rather if Monty saved Python.

  2. well... by buanzo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    we still have pgsql, right? yeah, migration, but still free/libre, right? first post? nah...

    --
    Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
    1. Re:well... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, Interesting

      These days, most new sites developed by sensible developers are built on FLPP (FreeBSD/Lighttpd/PostgreSQL/Python) or FNPP (FreeBSD/Nginx/PostgreSQL/Python) stacks.

      I suspect that LAMP still makes the majority, though, it's just that you've conveniently sneaked up the word "sensible" here, which is of course defined by you as "using the technology I believe to be appropriate".

      Meanwhile, the mention of FreeBSD there already makes me go "huh?". Not even to mention non-Apache web servers, and Python over PHP (I wholeheartedly wish PHP to die a quick death, but at this point, for web development at least, it is clearly more popular than Python by any measure).

    2. Re:well... by hibiki_r · · Score: 3, Informative

      The main difference IIRC is that you actually have to enable postmaster to take connections, instead of being locked down by default. I'm glad it's locked by default myself, but there's people that don't want to read any documentation.

      Postgres is a freaking enterprise database. Its documentation is so good, it makes every other framework in my development stack look bad. But people complain because they'd rather have the easy things be trivial, without caring about the difficulty of the not so easy things.

      We also run MySQL at work, and we have a whole lot more problems with it. The developers, who were the ones that chose MySQL in the first place, are considering a switch to Postgres, based on how fewer headaches we get with our Postgres installations.

    3. Re:well... by hardwarefreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Postgres is a freaking enterprise database. Its documentation is so good, it makes every other framework in my development stack look bad. But people complain because they'd rather have the easy things be trivial, without caring about the difficulty of the not so easy things.

      Some people just want their sql enabled php/java webmail app to be able to store and retrieve address book entries and what not. Should we have to become db gurus just to support such a tiny function of one of our applications? Or just to run a BBS, ahem, sorry, I mean *forum*?

      There is a finite amount of time in a lifetime. If all of us had to become an expert on every god damn piece of software we ever touch, we'd all be broke, starving, and near death. Some software, especially support software (which is what all dbs are), needs to be "drop in an go" in many cases, with little to no configuration required.

  3. Own fault by sopssa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Maybe he shouldn't had sold it in the first time, so he wouldn't be crying it back now?

    It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

    1. Re:Own fault by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

      Or, to put it in Slashdot terms:

      It's like you broke up with your car and then go crying it back when it has found a new owner, while you're having no luck finding another car.

    2. Re:Own fault by PizzaAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you go to a pizza joint and order a buffalo chicken style pizza with tender chicken breast, hot sauce, and onions with provolone and American cheeses on a cheddar crust, and eat it with a big glass of mountain dew, you can't just go back and say "Now that I think of it, I would rather have had Hawaiian style pan-pizza with sliced ham, bacon, pineapple and roasted red peppers with provolone cheese on a parmesan crust". You've made your deal already. If you want an another pizza, you have to buy it again.

    3. Re:Own fault by sean_nestor · · Score: 4, Informative

      FTA:

      Q: Didn't you sell MySQL to Sun? Do you want to have the cake and eat it too?

      First a little background:

      I started to work on a code that would later become MySQL in 1982. MySQL was released in 1995 under a dual licensing scheme that allowed David Axmark and me to very quickly work full time on developing MySQL.

      I lost the rights to the MySQL copyright in 2001 when MySQL AB was created and we allowed investors to come in. We needed to bring in investors to be able to create a full-scale working company to satisfy big customers and to be able to hire more developers and take MySQL to the next stage. To ensure that MySQL would continue to be free, David and I stated in the shareholder agreement that MySQL AB would have to keep MySQL under an open source license. The problem with a shareholder agreement is that it is terminated when the company is sold. This is just how things works.

      David and I however thought that this would not be a problem, as we would help ensure that MySQL would be bought by a good owner.

      I continued to lead the MySQL project and have been one of the leaders and top contributors for the project since then.

      When the sales process to Sun started, I was at the time not anymore in the MySQL Board (just a MySQL shareholder). I was just informed about the deal, after it was agreed to. I did get money for my shares, that is true, but it did not change in any way my dedication or involvement in the MySQL project.

    4. Re:Own fault by tushar.tyagi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

      If Oracle does whatever MySQL guy thinks it'll do then that means the new guy is trying to kill your girl. In that case it's all right trying to save her.

    5. Re:Own fault by sopssa · · Score: 4, Insightful

      David and I however thought that this would not be a problem, as we would help ensure that MySQL would be bought by a good owner.

      So it was really short-sighted thinking. They should had have some clause that limits how MySQL project would be possibly resold, or not sell the company at all, because its pretty clear that the project could be resold or go along with larger corporate overtakes. It's happened hundreds of times. They got to have known this.

    6. Re:Own fault by Znork · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but it is bad for business.

      Bad for the selling software part of business, perhaps, but good for the buying and using software part of business. Which is the vast majority of businesses. So if you want to generalize, the GPL is without a doubt great for business.

      If one could feed a family

      Anything that helps you cut costs makes it easier to feed a family. Profitability has two parts, not only revenue but also expenses.

      Why would anyone ... use a license that undermines their business?

      Because it simply doesn't undermine most businesses. It undermines a few business models based completely on monopoly rights, but for most businesses software or software development is simply a cost centre. They get a higher profitability by cutting the costs and using (and/or modifying and/or producing) GPL software than they would by taking the whole cost themselves and having to increase revenue elsewhere.

      Microsoft would probably have a hard time switching over to the GPL+services model as they've accumulated so much fat from living in a high-margin uncompetitive segment for so long they'd get a corporate aneurysm if they actually had to shed that fat. But Microsoft is hardly the average company in the computing industry.

    7. Re:Own fault by yttrstein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have to step in and say something here. If at any point in the 90s or early oughts... even up to 2004, you'd considered dropping in the ability to do hot DB dumps without table locking, you would have very likely gotten bigger than Oracle. (Much as Linux has gotten bigger than Solaris). It was idiocy of you not to do so, in favor of... god only knows what.

      And now frankly its too little, too late. MYSQL is pretty ok for a light-to-medium duty database, but you guys have had a couple of decades to really, *really* get it right, and you didn't.

      If Oracle kills MySQL, the biggest pain in the arse will be moving things over to postgresql, which everyone should have done ten years ago in the first place.

    8. Re:Own fault by montywi · · Score: 4, Interesting

      When you take in investors, it's impossible to get such a clause. (Don't think that we didn't try).

      So, in 2001, David and I had the choice to continue like before and grow slowly or take a risk and grow
      rapidly.

      Growing meant more resources for development and a better Open Source database overall. The price to pay was less control.

  4. Me too! by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I, too, would love to sell something for a billion dollars and then have it given back.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    1. Re:Me too! by onefriedrice · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's not as if he was unaware of the danger of the death of free software.

      The supposed death of free software and a "free internet" is just the distraction he's trying to use. MySQL is open source. Even if Oracle relicenses future releases of MySQL under terms that are less free, we still have the same MySQL as we've always had with the same free terms. If it were ever to be an issue, a fork would happen immediately and/or we'd see increased use of PostgreSQL. Either way, the "internet" will be kept free regardless. I don't know much about Monty, but my prejudgment is that he's slime.

      --
      This author takes full ownership and responsibility for the unpopular opinions outlined above.
  5. Not just his blog by dals_rule · · Score: 5, Informative

    He also spammed everybody who's ever been dumb enough to let him get anywhere near their e-mail address with the same self-serving, hypocritical screed...

  6. No he doesn't by wiredlogic · · Score: 5, Informative

    This has been hashed out before. Monty wants to force the legitimate owner of MySQL to give up its rights to the documentation and proprietary parts of the source code so he can deploy his own commercial product using MariaDB. It's that simple. He got a big payoff when he cashed out and now he wants to double dip by getting back for free what he has already been compensated for.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    1. Re:No he doesn't by JSBiff · · Score: 4, Interesting

      There's an interesting thing hidden in this whole mess. . . The argument that Monty makes for why he doesn't think MySQL can survive as a strictly GPL product is that it would cut off the ability of him and others to make money selling non-GPL products which *link* to MySQL. This is based upon the notion that dynamically linking an executable with a GPL library (or linking a non-GPL library with a GPL executable) violates the GPL - which of course is an assertion the FSF likes to make. I am not a lawyer, but I've tried to research this and find an answer to the following question: does dynamic linking actually create a copyright infringement situation (i.e. a derivative work)?

      From a technical standpoint, you can argue back and forth on the merits all day. But, from a standpoint of the law, so far as I've been able to tell, this is a question that has never been addressed by courts or legislation. Personally, I feel the most reasonable interpretation (from the standpoint of being consistent and, well, logical) would be that linking does *not* create a derivative work (for example, is Firefox a derivative of the Flash plugin, or Flash plugin a derivative of Firefox? Seems to me they are fairly independent works that use the mechanism of dynamic linking to work together.)

      But, I also agree with other posters that Monty got a Billion bucks, and now wants to get MySQL back, and that's just kind of shady. You sell something, you get paid, it's not yours anymore. Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.

    2. Re:No he doesn't by JSBiff · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You still haven't explained how a derivative work is created. You make an appeal to authority where you have none, period. (See, wasn't that easy?)

      Copyright law governs the distribution of copies of a protected work. That's all. It doesn't govern use (although, sometimes, contracts are used as part of the licensing agreement to receive a copy for proprietary software, which can add further restrictions). But the GPL is not a contract, it is a license, and only covers the work it was applied to, and any *derivative works*.

      The thing is, even though the linked library or EXE uses the API, it doesn't *contain* the API. So, the argument can be made that where there is no copying, there is no copyright violation. Put another way, there is a very logical argument that a dynamically linked work is completely separate from the executable or library it links against. Think of a book or magazine article, or even an article on a website, which directs the reader to go read something else, then come back and finish reading the text of the article. Is the article a derivative work of the work it references/links to?

        Hence, even though the library or exe *depends* upon the other work, it may not be a derivative because it does not *contain* the other work (or, perhaps the courts will decide that it *is* in fact, a derivative, but no one really knows for sure). See, like I said, we can argue about this all day, but the question is still not settled in law. The law, so far as I know, *does not* address the question of dynamically linking computer programs in any statute or court precedent.

      "Your argument is like saying oral sex is not sex."

      No, it's not. It's nice you're so opinionated, but that makes no sense.

  7. He got paid. It's GPL. by bcrowell · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He got paid a large amount of money for MySQL, and now he's not satisfied. MySQL is under GPL v. 2, so there isn't a problem. If Sun takes it in a bad direction, it can be forked.

    --
    Find free books.
  8. C'mon man... by raftpeople · · Score: 3, Funny

    don't Monty me on this deal!

  9. Dear Monty... by Richard_at_work · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you had never sold MySQL to Sun in the first place, it wouldn't be in the position it is now in. I hope the money was worth it.

    Why are you so concerned now? Your chance to do something came and went, and so did you.

    Also, I rather think you overrate MySQL in that petition post, but thats just mho.

    1. Re:Dear Monty... by montywi · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have answered your questions in my blog post here
      What we are now working on is just to ensure that MySQL gets a good home, which is of benefit for all MySQL users.

  10. There is already a perfectly good free DBMS by A+beautiful+mind · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's called PostgreSQL. It's fast, what's even more important, it's correct and it's tried and tested. Get it here.

    --
    It takes a man to suffer ignorance and smile
    Be yourself no matter what they say
    1. Re:There is already a perfectly good free DBMS by sco08y · · Score: 4, Informative

      Can you elaborate on the 'correct' with emphasis?

      Google says that both postgresql and mysql get hits from 'incorrect results'. Are you stating that mysql's bugs have gone unfixed while postgre's have not? Or what?

      For fairness, I'm going by MySQL version 5.5, the development version.

      The default storage engine will quietly ignore foreign key constraints and transactions. source for default engine, claim that MySQL parses and ignores for non-InnoDB

      There are multiple "SQL Modes" that can alter correctness, source, but by default the DBMS doesn't try to validate input. It's pretty confusing what mode does what, and I don't care enough to figure it out, but MySQL's approach has always been Do What I Think You Mean, and if they set the new version to be ANSI compliant by default it'd break all the existing sites built on it.

      (I'm claiming this qualifies as "not being correct" by virtue of the Information Principle. Granted, SQL itself violates it in many ways, but MySQL proved that you can do worse than SQL.)

      PostgreSQL has a far more correct transaction model. In some ways, they're actually better than Oracle. (In Oracle, a DDL statement will start a new transaction, whereas PostgreSQL wraps DDL into a transaction.) For starters, there aren't multiple "storage engines" per table with different transactional behaviors. source, sort of.

      Also, PostgreSQL, to my knowledge, correctly validates input. It's kind of hard to cite a source for this since there's just no FAQ entry "Q. How do I configure PostgreSQL to silently corrupt my data? A. You can't." But by the same token, they don't have any long-standing terrible design decisions that they have to maintain compatibility with.

  11. Baloney! He doesn't want to save MySQL by SwashbucklingCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    He wants to build another business on MySQL and force Oracle into letting him do it.

    This is greed masquerading as virtue.

  12. Monty is a douche by thetoadwarrior · · Score: 3, Interesting

    He got his money and now he sees an opportunity to get his code back that he sold and the shyster is doing what he can to get it back.

    He has his own db, MariaDB and if it's any good then he shouldn't care since its whole purpose is that it's a replacement to MySQL.

    I've also noticed he's not allowing comments on his blog that counter his points no matter how mature and well presented they are.

    I really hope Oracle gets the ok, if for any reason to shit in this guy's Cheerios. I won't have anything to do anything he's working on.

  13. A sentence is missing from the beginning... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "In January, 2008, Sun legally acquired MySQL for $1 billion."

    --
    File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    1. Re:A sentence is missing from the beginning... by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Insightful

          You have to provide references before saying something like that. :)

          It was $1B in total considerations, which most likely wasn't all cash. I'm sure all of it didn't go in Monty's pocket, but I'm sure he did walk away with a pretty nice sum.

          There's a thing about business though. Most places want to grow a business from nothing, to the point where it's a viable product to sell. Then they sell it. All of it. There's no looking back. It was yours, now it's not. So sorry, move on.

          If I made something, and it sold for $1B, I'd be a pretty happy camper. Hell, Sabeer Bhatia sold Hotmail in 1997 for $400M, and he was happy. Now (in a 2007 article I read), is funding new startups with the hope of making the next killer app that will be bigger than Hotmail.

          I have a few things that I've done, and if someone offered me even $1M to give one up, I'd take it. I wouldn't look back. I'd smile the whole way to the bank. :)

          If he wants MySQL back, tough. If Sun decides to gut it, and make the MySQL site into a porn link farm web site, and the database engine into a shell script that greps a flat file, so be it. It's theirs, and it's their decision. They could sell to Oracle, or Microsoft, or anyone they'd like.

          If he *really* wants it back, he should put his effort into his new database, and don't give it up next time, even for $1B.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  14. InnoDB is Oracle already.. by praseodym · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since InnoDB (the only proper storage engine in the default MySQL distribution) is owned by Oracle already, why bother?

  15. Fuck Monty and the horse he rode in on by ReallyEvilCanine · · Score: 4, Insightful
    This three-week-old story hasn't changed a bit and neither has Monty's disingenuous hypocrisy.

    If he'd wanted to retain control then why did he sell mySQL to Sun? Once that sale was completed he gave up his rights and claims. He certainly didn't have a problem with a corporation owning it in exchange for a cool billion earlier.

    What Sun said they wanted to do with it is immaterial; Monty's rights to do anything more than complain vocally were terminated by his own hand the instant he signed the contract, and were made irreversible when he deposited that check.

    The fact of the matter is that Oracle doesn't give more than about a shit-and-a-half about mySQL. Oracle cares about Enterprise installations and mySQL not only ain't there now, it never will be. Even Foxbase^W^H MS SQL Server spanks it 37 ways to next Tuesday in Enterprise and Data Warehousing environments.

    Meanwhile, if mySQL really is and has remained open source, then it's still open, so Monty should STFU and fork it already. If not, then he himself killed it and there's no one else to blame.

    Once you sell your 2CV to someone, you have no more say in what's done with the car, even if it turns out to have been bought by Top Gear and they want to blow it up. Once you take the money, you don't get to complain anymore. If it had meant that much to Monty then why did he sell?

    Cake: have vs. eat.

    The comment moderation on his blog is just icing on that cake -- only comments supporting poor, ickle widdle Monty's untenable position are allowed through.

    And for those who still refuse to change the "evil Oracle" record, The base Oracle DB charge is $350 (Std) / $950 (Ent) per user or $17,500 (Std) / $47,500 (Ent) per processor -- annually, not including required support and other charges -- Oracle doesn't give a shit about mySQL and the paltry few thousand that supporting it might bring in.

    If it's really still Open Sauce and the community doesn't like what happens with it then mySQL will fork. Again. Except that it will need a new core team since the current core team has bills to pay and enjoys employment during an economic mess.

  16. And how much money did he make from it? by frinkacheese · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So MySQL sold for a cool $1 billion in whatever it was, and now he wants to get it back for free? This is so funny it may just work.

  17. Re:Stick a fork in it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why doesn't he just fork the whole project?

    He has, it's called something like mariadb. Two problems: No one has ever heard of his fork, and what he really wants is the proprietary parts that were developed when mysql (the corp) was under his control.

  18. Re:Stick a fork in it! by jvillain · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There is a third problem. No one is going to risk their business on Monty's fork or sign over their patches because the risk is so great that he will sell every one out again. The fact that he is fully in bed with Microsoft on this makes it even more likely. Fool us once shame on you, fool us twice shame on us.

  19. He's just a greedy hypocritical troll by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Informative
    Original source

    Background: MySQL is an open-source database used by millions. Originally developed by closely-held Swedish company MySQL AB, it was sold to Sun Microsystems Inc in January 2008. Sun is now in the process of being acquired Oracle Corporation. The deal is still awaiting European regulatory approval.

    Not happy with selling MySQL AB to Sun for a cool billion, Monty Widenius is now trolling regulators, the media, and anyone who will listen in his efforts to get back control of "his" database (without having to give back the money).

    European regulators still don't "get" the open-source software model

    The Europeans are holding up their approval of the Sun-Oracle deal because of concerns that the acquisition will reduce competition in the database industry. Oracle Corp, which is already the dominant player in large-scale corporate databases, already "controls" several open-source database products such as Oracle Berkeley DB and the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MysQL

    The reason I put "controls" in quotes is because it's very difficult to actually exert full control an open-source project, especially one that is licensed under the GPL or similar open-source license. It would probably be more accurate to say that Oracle "sponsors" both BerkeleyDB and InnoDB.

    It's all about being an unabashed hypocrite

    Widenius was originally able to control MySQL by insisting that the copyright for all code contributed by outsiders be assigned to MySQL AB. By doing this, Widenius was able to "dual-license" MySQL, with both a free GPL version and a paid commercial version.

    This licensing scheme was good enough when Widenius was in control of MySQL AB, but now that Oracle is buying Sun, suddenly Widenius wants both the licensing scheme changed to something that would allow his new company to sell modified copies without having to release the source code for their changes, and to have Oracle turn over control of MySQL to someone other than Oracle - perhaps the EU should consider (nudge nudge, wink wink) his new company, Monty Program AB?

    Calls the GPL licensing scheme an "infection", wants the EU to violate international treaties

    You can read more about the attempt to get the Europeans to retroactively change the licensing scheme from the GPL to something more "Monty Widenius-friendly":

    We would like to draw attention to the fact that some major concerns about the effects of the proposed transaction could be somewhat alleviated by requiring that all versions of MySQL source code previously released under the GPLv2 license (whether in a General Availability, Release Candidate, Beta, Alpha release, or as public bazaar or bitkeeper revision control trees) must be released under a more liberal open source license that is usable also by the OEM users and would also create an opportuity for other service vendors to compete with offerings comparable to MySQL Enterprise.

    In other words, he wants the European Union to violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Bern Convention on Copyrights and retroactively change the license from the GPL, which requires him to share any changes he makes to source code covered by the GPL, to a license that would let him take from the original authors, but not give back anything in return.

    The "copyleft/infection" principle of the GPL license represents a particular obstacle not only to revenue generation by the fork vendor but also to the overall adoption and market penetration of MySQL, MySQL forks and MySQL storage engines....

    When we were kids, our parents told us "share and share alike." The authors who contributed source code under the GPL adhered to this principle. If you don't want to share your changes, simply don't "borrow" their

  20. Time to switch... by XB-70 · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Instead of whining, it's time to make the switch to a 'real' database: PostgreSQL - http://www.postgresql.org/

    It may not be as fast as MySQL, but it's certainly more robust and capable. If you look at the core of ORACLE's design (which is pretty damned good), you'll find that Postgresql has similar design principals.

    When it comes to data loss, I'd rather the more robust database than the fastest one.

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  21. We Don't Need No Stinking Petition by mpapet · · Score: 3, Informative

    1. MySQL would need to be a sufficiently revenue-producing entity in order for it to sustain internal development at Oracle. What those revenue producing metrics are is impossible to know from the outside. I'm a pessimist though and would estimate whatever MySQL dev is done in-house will probably get chopped by 2/3 in order to make the revenue fit into their financing targets. That's assuming Oracle doesn't abandon it right away.

    2. This $1 Billion number being thrown around is a PR number. I'd guess Monty's gotten 10's of thousands of dollars for closing the deal. Other than that his payout won't come. He won't get paid because the value of the deal is typically based on payouts based on future earnings. We know Sun couldn't turn it into a bigger revenue producer. With the change in ownership, I'm sure Oracle will renege on whatever deal he had with Sun and tell Monty to "Go pound sand. Your issue is with the Sun Officers who signed the deal, not Oracle."

    3. I bet he's got a non-compete that prevents him from directly starting something. Which, Oracle would enforce while pretending about other parts of the agreement. That's why he's got this petition thing.

    Monty pretended those future payouts would work, got screwed by Sun, and now he's trying to get back in the game.

    Today's entrepreneurial lesson: get paid today, not tomorrow.

    --
    http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html