In my experience there seems on the surface to be a lot of noise on Slashdot discussions, but you do find plenty of of signal once you focus on a real topic with slashdotters with insightful comments.
Yep (on the stack), but note that MySQL is open source as well, and will continue to be so.
What we are talking about are pluggable additions that we will ship to subscription customers only. But we have not yet decided on the licensing for such pluggable additions. We may choose a commercial licence, but we may also choose the GPL. In the latter scenario the code would be free and open source software, but we as the product vendor would deliver it only to paying customers. That's how Red Hat does it as well.
Whichever licensing we end up choosing, there will always be a fully functional GPLd MySQL server that can be put in a variety of stacks.
Yes, there is a risk of harm to our credibility as we experiment with the business model and potentially make licensing changes. This is why we don't do these decisions lightly. At the same time we feel we just must continue to innovate and to question the status quo.
We will inevitably upset some people, but we may also win new friends. We must make sure that we don't let our operations be subjected to the tyranny of a vocal minority, many of whom have not produced GPL code or built an open source product themselves. They are important community members and we listen carefully to their input. But we must know that it is always easier to criticise what someone else is doing than doing something oneself or having a concrete and constructive counter-proposal.
You, however, have presented good constructive proposals in your postings here, and I am very thankful for them. Perhaps it turns out that you are exactly right and we should follow your advice. Time will tell. And again this is a demonstration of the power of open source: solutions are scrutinised in public and opinions can be expressed freely. In the long run, that leads to the best outcome for all.
* On the support issue, I think there are customers of all types - both the type you describe and the one I described.
* As for Red Hat's immunity to distro clones, I am not sure we know the result yet. It indeed seems that Red Hat is immune, but can we be certain after only a year or two?
* As for the stack, Sun can certainly create such a stack, as can other vendors. And will, I'd say. I see that as an orthogonal issue - i.e. stacks can be created and will be created nevertheless. Our business model decision doesn't (in my mind) affect stacks much.
Thx. I think your points are valid and make sense in some portion of the universe. The difficulty is knowing to what extent. If they are valid to the largest extent, then you are correct and we (when we realise this) will follow your advice.
Until then we will continue to experiment. You are right that there is no other example larger than MySQL than Red Hat. But I am not ready to think that we have explored all useful avenues and should settle on what we have today. I am ready to experiment.
My experience tells me that by experimenting, new innovations will emerge. It may not be the innovation you thought you were creating - it may be something else. I love this quote by Arthur Schopenhauer in this regard: "The alchemists in their search for gold discovered many other things of greater value."
Thx. Some more comments on the differences I referred to earlier:
I believe that customers using operating systems will mostly want the latest updates and patches, so on-going support (or subscription) is vital to the the well-being of the installation. But with databases, customers typically want to avoid updates unless they absolutely need them. For this reason I believe that selling a support program (only) to database customers may not be as good a business as doing it to operating system customers.
Another point worth making is that the business model decisions we make are based not so much on what end-customers should or should not be able to do, but what competitors should or should not be able to do.
An example: the MySQL brand and trademark is owned by us. We don't mind if end-customers say "I am running on MySQL" but we do mind if a vendor names a product "MySQL XYZ" without our permission. In the latter case there is a risk that end-customers would get confused by the naming. They may think the XYZ product comes from the MySQL company when in reality it doesn't. So we use our ownership of the trademark more to govern what vendors can do than what customers can do.
Similarly with what is here being discussed - the advanced add-ons for backup that in 6.0 will be distributed in MySQL Enterprise only to paying customers (whereas core online backup will be available to everyone) - we want to make sure that *we* get to decide who can sell and ship such a complete subscription offering to customers.
But then also, all this time we will continue to deliver a fully GPLd MySQL database server that provides tremendous value to users and customers alike. We will continue to compete for the hearts and minds of developers and users who pay us nothing. That ambition has not gone anywhere. If anything, it has grown, and you will see MySQL as part of many different stacks under the GPL licence.
We just think that we also must have a way of making money with customers who have serious mission-critical production deployments of MySQL. Of course such customers will not be forced to buy anything from us. They can probably manage without the subscription service, they can build the additional features themselves, they can commission someone else to build them, and they can buy them from any of our partners and competitors who also provide such functionality or service.
So for these reasons I believe that there is no serious downside either for our users or our customers.
But time will tell, as noted, and we will be ready to make changes to our business model as we learn more about how this works.
Thx. We have considered Red Hat's model carefully, and it may indeed be one that we and others could also adopt to 100%. If we reach that conclusion, we will align our model with theirs.
But we are not absolutely certain that this is the case, and so we are experimenting with other models. We believe that a DBMS behaves somewhat differently in the market compared to an operating system. We believe that Red Hat's competitive situation is different from ours. And we are not fully convinced that Red Hat gets a fair compensation in the market for their enormous (and great) investments and contributions.
So for these reasons we continue to test out new models.
I tried to clarify the facts in another posting a moment ago: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525246&cid=23098626
Here I will discuss the business model considerations, MySQL's commitment to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and why we made the decision we made.
First and foremost: we at MySQL firmly believe that open source is a superior way of producing software. You get better quality faster, and you often get better innovation too.
So it is not lightly that we have decided a few times to produce non-open software, such as the MySQL Monitor introduced some years ago. So why do we do that?
The reason is that we have an ambition not only to produce FOSS code, but also to be a profitable business that can exist for a long time. Each time we make more money, we hire more developers to develop GPL code.
If the world were perfect, we would only produce GPL code and we would have a great business that cna fund the software development. But we have found that the world is not perfect. We have been experimenting with a variety of business models around FOSS (dual licensing, support only, simple subscriptions, different binaries for community and enterprise, non-open source features) to find the best one. And we will continue to experiment until we are satisfied. We need to find a model that allows us to produce a ton of great code under GPL while having the financial strength to do all this.
To get to this goal of ours, we believe we have to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. Call it a necessary evil if you like. Having production add-ons that we provide only to paying customers currently seems to use to be a useful model. Our partners and customers think it is great. Many users think it is great. But not all do (as evident from this thread on/.). I would hope we could please all, but I am afraid we cannot.
In all of this - i.e. as we experiment with open source business models (as there aren't really any role models bigger than ourselves that we could learn from) - we remain fully committed to producing the core database server always under the GPL (or some other approved FOSS licence).
In this work, we feel we have been able to produce enormous benefits to the world in the form of GPL software. The MySQL server could not have evolved as much as it did (not that I am saying it has evolved perfectly) if we hadn't had a revenue stream to fund the hiring of developers and others. We have open sourced MySQL Cluster which was an advanced closed-source database engine at Ericsson. We open sourced the Falcon storage engine.
I can appreciate that many of you are upset with our decisions. It has happened before that the community has been upset with us. But I hope that you can see that
* we are trying to be fully open and transparent with our decision-making in these areas
* we have a full commitment to produce the core MySQL server under GPL
* we are actively listening to your input
We can probably not please all, but you should know that we are trying to serve our community. We are immensely thankful for all the support and contributions that we have received in our 13-year history. We are hoping that we are good stewards of the MySQL phenomenon, and we hope that you can come to terms with the fact that we find revenue generation a vital part of our mission.
We may not have come up with the perfect business model yet (and perhaps the decision that is here being debated was utterly stupid), but we are determined to continue to seek the perfect business model for open source software so that we can continue to exist and be strong, and so that other software entrepreneurs can learn from our successes and mistakes.
Finally, please note that this entire decision and reasoning is something we developed on our own at MySQL AB several months ago, before being acquired by Sun. Sun has not asked us to do this or that. Or in fact, Sun has asked us the opposite - i.e. whether we should not
Thanks for all the comments on this. We are listening attentively. Let me clarify some facts:
* The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO) prior to the acquisition by Sun, so this has nothing to do with Sun. On the contrary, Sun is more likely to influence this decision the other way.
* It is not a quesiton of close sourcing any existing code, nor anything in the core server. Everything we have released under GPL continues to be under GPL, and the core server will always be under GPL (or some other FOSS licence).
* We will introduce backup functionality for all users (Community and Enterprise) under GPL in version 6.0.
* Additionally we will develop high-end add-ons (such as encryption, native storage engine-specific drivers) that we will deliver to customers in the MySQL Enterprise product only. We have not yet decided under what licence we will release those add-ons (GPL, some other FOSS licence, and/or commercial).
* At all times, because the main backup functionality goes into the core server under GPL, anyone can of course use the api and build their own add-ons or other modifications.
Those are the facts on this. The interesting topic is of course the one of the business model and what the best business model for FOSS software is. I hope to cover that in a separate posting.
In all of this, you have our undivided continued commitment to providing a fantastic and complete MySQL server under GPL for anyone to download and use. If we for whatever reason would not do that, we would risk losing users to other open source databases or risk seeing a fork of our own product. This is the power of open source.
Thank you for your comments! At MySQL AB we try to listen carefully to our users and customers and make sure our product fits their needs. From our frugal beginnings in the late 90s we have scaled with our customers and today, as you know, MySQL powers Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Google and others.
These power users always test and find the limits of MySQL. Many times it seems that something is wrong with our product and that we still have a long ways to go. But then we take the bug reports, feature requests and other input and sit down and design it into our next release, and soon enough we have reached a new level of scalability and maturity. Sure, many times we wish we could deliver the new goodies sooner. But constructing a DBMS is hard work, and each change in the software introduces the risk of side effects in the form of new bugs. So we try to be methodical when making changes.
The comments in your posting here have already been distributed to the entire MySQL company so that we can evaluate them and take action where needed. Although it can feel embarrassing both to give and to take negative comments, at the end of the day that is one of the key reasons why open source is a superior software development paradigm. So please keep the comments coming! Behind your disappointment, we can hear that you are passionate about this. And if you like, feel free to tell us who you are so that we can engage directly with you in resolving those issues.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
P.S. As you may have read elsewhere, we are super excited about the opportunity to be part of Sun. In recent years Sun has become the strongest proponent of free and open source software, and they have a new strategy that includes working closely with *all* platforms, especially Linux and Windows. So with that framework, and knowing that Sun has very deep database expertise that can accelerate the MySQL product roadmap, we felt this was the right thing to do. And nothing wrong in getting access to a huge global field organisation that can sell and support MySQL to customers large and small!
The question of BSD vs. GPL is an interesting one, and you can find evidence of success and failure in both. Apache is a liberally licensed FOSS product that has seen great success. But in the DBMS world, the BSD-licensed product is a non-profit project, whereas the commercial companies have created closed-source versions of the FOSS product. Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me that in that constellation, less code is made open source.
With MySQL, we have the entire DBMS under GPL and for anyone and everyone to use and modify, so we think this model results in more FOSS code. MySQL Cluster, which I mentioned in my first posting above, is in my mind a great example. We then build our commercial value proposition on the notion of certified binaries, services and tools. That's our way of maximising FOSS and revenues in one go. But, as one can note from this/. discussion and others, whatever business model you choose, you will have people speaking up both for it and against it.
I have made bigger mistakes in my life when taking things too lightly than we taking them too seriously - so, yes, really.
But of course if it would turn out that I don't know how to run the businesss, then I am sure our board would be delighted to hear from you, as you seem to hint that you know how to do that.
Your comments are appreciated and we take your input seriously. Just to make sure that all facts are correct: we have not closed the source. MySQL continues to be GPL as before.
We have only made a change in relation to binaries. Community binaries are available as before, MySQL Enterprise binaries are provided to our customers. We are highly grateful both for those who count themselves as users and those who count themselves as customers. And the binaries are produced from GPL source code so of course you are all in your full rights to modify, compile, redistribute etc. as before.
The rapid innovation rate in and around MySQL is very much a reasult of the product being licensed under the GPL. Look for instance at MySQL Cluster and MySQL Proxy which are innovations from us, or at the SPASQL modification made by Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/22-SPARQL-MySQL/XTech
I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
I am sorry if we are losing the trust you have in us at MySQL AB.
We have a simple ambition of building a commercially successful business that is built on top of great GPL software. We have a community edition for those who are ready to spend time to save money, and a commercial edition (MySQL Enterprise) for those who are ready to spend money to save time. Both are GPL and live up to all requirements of that licence.
We continually finetune this model and make changes, and as doing so we may at times upset our users or make a mistake. I don't think the change we now made was a mistake, but I am very keen to hear your opinion and also your suggestion on how we can best serve the two groups we have (users and customers). Feel free to send me an email (it's easy to guess what my email address is) so we can engage in a discussion.
Obviously I am a big believer in our model, but wouldn't you also agree that we have brought some great innovations (whether created by the community or by us) to the FOSS world in recent years? I am thinking of MySQL Cluster and the storage engine architecture in general, and more recently MySQL Proxy, etc. Without a functioning business model we would not be able to run such projects or do the QA or other work that is required in addition to the design and coding.
Looking forward to your comments and hoping we can rebuild the trust.
MySQL *is* completely Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). All you have to do is licence your own application under a FOSS licence, and there will never be an obligation for you to pay anybody a fee for using MySQL.
The motto of MySQL and of the GPL licence is "share, and share alike" meaning that we eagerly share it openly and free of charge with those who themselves share their source code with others.
The only ones who would suffer from this principle are the ones who are building a closed-source product to distribute for a fee, and to those we are happy to sell MySQL under a commercial licence. We think this is a great principle of fairness.
This is also a key reason to why we can keep hiring top database developers all over the world, pay them good salaries, and continue to publish all the code they produce under a FOSS licence. We think that full-time open source developers deserve to get paid for their work. Don't you?
I hope this makes sense to you, and if not, let me know. All the best in building your business!
Thank you for assuming that we will reach that level!
Seriously, sure that can be an issue, but getting there takes 20-30 years in the software industry. In the meantime the world will evolve and there will be some new entrepreneur with a revolutionary way to manage data, and that will be the growth story, and whoever is the huge leader at the time will have to deal with this.
I must say I disagree with your analysis of IPO. But let's first back up. It was in 2001 that the founders of MySQL decided to get venture capital on board and to go for business growth and an IPO or an acquisition in the future. I don't know if you were around back then, but that would have been the right time to ask why the founders wanted an IPO.
Then to your analysis. I believe that an IPO has the opportunity to boost your financial resources for a very long time. I also believe that you don't have to lose control over your company. Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow - no matter whether the company is public or private. Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it. So although you may not have lost control to another shareholder, you have essentially lost control to the circumstances.
And then there are other benefits of IPO. It gives you a currency for making acqusitions. It gives you exposure and typically add to your credibility among conservative customers. And it can be highly inspirational for the employees.
Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.
Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.
Marten
P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.
Here is my quick view of risks with going public, and how we are dealing with them:
Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)
Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.
Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.
Feel free to list more risks and I will be happy to address them.
Thanks everyone for the comments! Let me first note that there was no specific news item in the article referred to at the top. We have had plans for IPO for several years. We don't see an IPO as an end-goal, but as a natural step in the evolution and growth of MySQL.
As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time. We think that MySQL is a great business and one that can and should be independent and do an IPO at some point.
We share a passion for open source business - i.e. a passion to demonstrate what great businesses you can build on open source. And we want to provide the best database developers with great rewards: the good feeling of producing a product that changes the world, and the financial reward that comes with business success.
We have numerous users and customers ask us about buying MySQL stock. Today we are privately held and there are no shares for sale, but once we go public anyone can buy shares in our company. And being a public company we will have more strength to grow, to hire more great developers, and to serve new customers.
The customer count is over several years. Yes, the majority of our users choose not to pay. The current ratio is something like 1 in 1,000. But as you probably know as an open source user, there is great benefit to a project also from the ones who don't pay.
Those who pay do it for the value-add they receive: production support, scheduled binaries with only bug fixes, the monitoring and advisory servce, etc. From a business perspective the great thing is that the ratio of paid to non-paid is changing and our business is steadily growing.
We are proud at MySQL to build something that has great value to the FOSS communities and is a great business at the same time.
Sorry to hear that you don't like MySQL, but great to see that you nevertheless take time to read/. postings about us and to post your own. Let us know what "warts" you see in our product and help us improve it. Then perhaps one day you will find that it serves your needs.
Indeed we view MySQL competing in different markets from the legacy closed source databases. We have focused on new applications, often web-based systems, ecommerce, reporting, analysis and so on, rather than traditional ERP applications. There are many features that DB2 and Oracle have of which they are very proud. And we are also proud *not* to have all of the complexity of those features. Our focus is not on features, but on reliability, ease of use and performance.
Charles Phillips of Oracle remarked at a conference I was speaking at that Oracle and MySQL are both in the transportation business, but Oracle is the 747 and MySQL is the Toyota. I think that is a very apt analogy. But if you prefer the M1A2 tank, so be it.:-) In either case, we get very good gas mileage by comparison!
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments. It's a good discussion and I think there have been some good points made. I see Oracle and MySQL serving two distinct markets, so in most cases we are not competitors.
One point of clarification: I never said that Oracle has threatened MySQL. (I think this may have been the writer's editorial comment.) Instead, I view it as a positive thing that Oracle distributes MySQL. I have often suggested that Oracle should distribute MySQL and I've made the same suggestion to Microsoft. Perhaps Oracle, Microsoft or IBM will provide support for MySQL and that could be good for open source in general. (And note that Red Hat, HP and others already do so.)
If people want to buy support for MySQL from Oracle, that's great. And of course, if they want to buy it from us, we are fine with that also.
Slashdot Mirror
Thank you!
In my experience there seems on the surface to be a lot of noise on Slashdot discussions, but you do find plenty of of signal once you focus on a real topic with slashdotters with insightful comments.
Marten
Yep (on the stack), but note that MySQL is open source as well, and will continue to be so.
What we are talking about are pluggable additions that we will ship to subscription customers only. But we have not yet decided on the licensing for such pluggable additions. We may choose a commercial licence, but we may also choose the GPL. In the latter scenario the code would be free and open source software, but we as the product vendor would deliver it only to paying customers. That's how Red Hat does it as well.
Whichever licensing we end up choosing, there will always be a fully functional GPLd MySQL server that can be put in a variety of stacks.
Yes, there is a risk of harm to our credibility as we experiment with the business model and potentially make licensing changes. This is why we don't do these decisions lightly. At the same time we feel we just must continue to innovate and to question the status quo.
We will inevitably upset some people, but we may also win new friends. We must make sure that we don't let our operations be subjected to the tyranny of a vocal minority, many of whom have not produced GPL code or built an open source product themselves. They are important community members and we listen carefully to their input. But we must know that it is always easier to criticise what someone else is doing than doing something oneself or having a concrete and constructive counter-proposal.
You, however, have presented good constructive proposals in your postings here, and I am very thankful for them. Perhaps it turns out that you are exactly right and we should follow your advice. Time will tell. And again this is a demonstration of the power of open source: solutions are scrutinised in public and opinions can be expressed freely. In the long run, that leads to the best outcome for all.
Marten
Some more detailed answers to your questions:
* On the support issue, I think there are customers of all types - both the type you describe and the one I described.
* As for Red Hat's immunity to distro clones, I am not sure we know the result yet. It indeed seems that Red Hat is immune, but can we be certain after only a year or two?
* As for the stack, Sun can certainly create such a stack, as can other vendors. And will, I'd say. I see that as an orthogonal issue - i.e. stacks can be created and will be created nevertheless. Our business model decision doesn't (in my mind) affect stacks much.
But I can of course be wrong.
Marten
Thx. I think your points are valid and make sense in some portion of the universe. The difficulty is knowing to what extent. If they are valid to the largest extent, then you are correct and we (when we realise this) will follow your advice.
Until then we will continue to experiment. You are right that there is no other example larger than MySQL than Red Hat. But I am not ready to think that we have explored all useful avenues and should settle on what we have today. I am ready to experiment.
My experience tells me that by experimenting, new innovations will emerge. It may not be the innovation you thought you were creating - it may be something else. I love this quote by Arthur Schopenhauer in this regard: "The alchemists in their search for gold discovered many other things of greater value."
Marten
Thx. Some more comments on the differences I referred to earlier:
I believe that customers using operating systems will mostly want the latest updates and patches, so on-going support (or subscription) is vital to the the well-being of the installation. But with databases, customers typically want to avoid updates unless they absolutely need them. For this reason I believe that selling a support program (only) to database customers may not be as good a business as doing it to operating system customers.
Another point worth making is that the business model decisions we make are based not so much on what end-customers should or should not be able to do, but what competitors should or should not be able to do.
An example: the MySQL brand and trademark is owned by us. We don't mind if end-customers say "I am running on MySQL" but we do mind if a vendor names a product "MySQL XYZ" without our permission. In the latter case there is a risk that end-customers would get confused by the naming. They may think the XYZ product comes from the MySQL company when in reality it doesn't. So we use our ownership of the trademark more to govern what vendors can do than what customers can do.
Similarly with what is here being discussed - the advanced add-ons for backup that in 6.0 will be distributed in MySQL Enterprise only to paying customers (whereas core online backup will be available to everyone) - we want to make sure that *we* get to decide who can sell and ship such a complete subscription offering to customers.
But then also, all this time we will continue to deliver a fully GPLd MySQL database server that provides tremendous value to users and customers alike. We will continue to compete for the hearts and minds of developers and users who pay us nothing. That ambition has not gone anywhere. If anything, it has grown, and you will see MySQL as part of many different stacks under the GPL licence.
We just think that we also must have a way of making money with customers who have serious mission-critical production deployments of MySQL. Of course such customers will not be forced to buy anything from us. They can probably manage without the subscription service, they can build the additional features themselves, they can commission someone else to build them, and they can buy them from any of our partners and competitors who also provide such functionality or service.
So for these reasons I believe that there is no serious downside either for our users or our customers.
But time will tell, as noted, and we will be ready to make changes to our business model as we learn more about how this works.
Thanks again for your comments.
Marten
Thx! I will pass your msg to the Workbench team. By the way, they just released the product as GA (Generally Available), as you may know.
Marten
Thanks! I will ask our MySQL Monitor team to look into your suggestions.
Marten
Thx. We have considered Red Hat's model carefully, and it may indeed be one that we and others could also adopt to 100%. If we reach that conclusion, we will align our model with theirs.
But we are not absolutely certain that this is the case, and so we are experimenting with other models. We believe that a DBMS behaves somewhat differently in the market compared to an operating system. We believe that Red Hat's competitive situation is different from ours. And we are not fully convinced that Red Hat gets a fair compensation in the market for their enormous (and great) investments and contributions.
So for these reasons we continue to test out new models.
Marten
All,
/.). I would hope we could please all, but I am afraid we cannot.
I tried to clarify the facts in another posting a moment ago: http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525246&cid=23098626
Here I will discuss the business model considerations, MySQL's commitment to Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), and why we made the decision we made.
First and foremost: we at MySQL firmly believe that open source is a superior way of producing software. You get better quality faster, and you often get better innovation too.
So it is not lightly that we have decided a few times to produce non-open software, such as the MySQL Monitor introduced some years ago. So why do we do that?
The reason is that we have an ambition not only to produce FOSS code, but also to be a profitable business that can exist for a long time. Each time we make more money, we hire more developers to develop GPL code.
If the world were perfect, we would only produce GPL code and we would have a great business that cna fund the software development. But we have found that the world is not perfect. We have been experimenting with a variety of business models around FOSS (dual licensing, support only, simple subscriptions, different binaries for community and enterprise, non-open source features) to find the best one. And we will continue to experiment until we are satisfied. We need to find a model that allows us to produce a ton of great code under GPL while having the financial strength to do all this.
To get to this goal of ours, we believe we have to be more pragmatic than dogmatic. Call it a necessary evil if you like. Having production add-ons that we provide only to paying customers currently seems to use to be a useful model. Our partners and customers think it is great. Many users think it is great. But not all do (as evident from this thread on
In all of this - i.e. as we experiment with open source business models (as there aren't really any role models bigger than ourselves that we could learn from) - we remain fully committed to producing the core database server always under the GPL (or some other approved FOSS licence).
In this work, we feel we have been able to produce enormous benefits to the world in the form of GPL software. The MySQL server could not have evolved as much as it did (not that I am saying it has evolved perfectly) if we hadn't had a revenue stream to fund the hiring of developers and others. We have open sourced MySQL Cluster which was an advanced closed-source database engine at Ericsson. We open sourced the Falcon storage engine.
I can appreciate that many of you are upset with our decisions. It has happened before that the community has been upset with us. But I hope that you can see that
* we are trying to be fully open and transparent with our decision-making in these areas
* we have a full commitment to produce the core MySQL server under GPL
* we are actively listening to your input
We can probably not please all, but you should know that we are trying to serve our community. We are immensely thankful for all the support and contributions that we have received in our 13-year history. We are hoping that we are good stewards of the MySQL phenomenon, and we hope that you can come to terms with the fact that we find revenue generation a vital part of our mission.
We may not have come up with the perfect business model yet (and perhaps the decision that is here being debated was utterly stupid), but we are determined to continue to seek the perfect business model for open source software so that we can continue to exist and be strong, and so that other software entrepreneurs can learn from our successes and mistakes.
Finally, please note that this entire decision and reasoning is something we developed on our own at MySQL AB several months ago, before being acquired by Sun. Sun has not asked us to do this or that. Or in fact, Sun has asked us the opposite - i.e. whether we should not
Thanks for all the comments on this. We are listening attentively. Let me clarify some facts:
* The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO) prior to the acquisition by Sun, so this has nothing to do with Sun. On the contrary, Sun is more likely to influence this decision the other way.
* It is not a quesiton of close sourcing any existing code, nor anything in the core server. Everything we have released under GPL continues to be under GPL, and the core server will always be under GPL (or some other FOSS licence).
* We will introduce backup functionality for all users (Community and Enterprise) under GPL in version 6.0.
* Additionally we will develop high-end add-ons (such as encryption, native storage engine-specific drivers) that we will deliver to customers in the MySQL Enterprise product only. We have not yet decided under what licence we will release those add-ons (GPL, some other FOSS licence, and/or commercial).
* At all times, because the main backup functionality goes into the core server under GPL, anyone can of course use the api and build their own add-ons or other modifications.
Those are the facts on this. The interesting topic is of course the one of the business model and what the best business model for FOSS software is. I hope to cover that in a separate posting.
In all of this, you have our undivided continued commitment to providing a fantastic and complete MySQL server under GPL for anyone to download and use. If we for whatever reason would not do that, we would risk losing users to other open source databases or risk seeing a fork of our own product. This is the power of open source.
Make sense?
Marten
previously CEO of MySQL, now SVP at Sun
Thank you for your comments! At MySQL AB we try to listen carefully to our users and customers and make sure our product fits their needs. From our frugal beginnings in the late 90s we have scaled with our customers and today, as you know, MySQL powers Facebook, Second Life, YouTube, Google and others.
These power users always test and find the limits of MySQL. Many times it seems that something is wrong with our product and that we still have a long ways to go. But then we take the bug reports, feature requests and other input and sit down and design it into our next release, and soon enough we have reached a new level of scalability and maturity. Sure, many times we wish we could deliver the new goodies sooner. But constructing a DBMS is hard work, and each change in the software introduces the risk of side effects in the form of new bugs. So we try to be methodical when making changes.
The comments in your posting here have already been distributed to the entire MySQL company so that we can evaluate them and take action where needed. Although it can feel embarrassing both to give and to take negative comments, at the end of the day that is one of the key reasons why open source is a superior software development paradigm. So please keep the comments coming! Behind your disappointment, we can hear that you are passionate about this. And if you like, feel free to tell us who you are so that we can engage directly with you in resolving those issues.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
P.S. As you may have read elsewhere, we are super excited about the opportunity to be part of Sun. In recent years Sun has become the strongest proponent of free and open source software, and they have a new strategy that includes working closely with *all* platforms, especially Linux and Windows. So with that framework, and knowing that Sun has very deep database expertise that can accelerate the MySQL product roadmap, we felt this was the right thing to do. And nothing wrong in getting access to a huge global field organisation that can sell and support MySQL to customers large and small!
I joked too.
Thanks for the encouraging words!
The question of BSD vs. GPL is an interesting one, and you can find evidence of success and failure in both. Apache is a liberally licensed FOSS product that has seen great success. But in the DBMS world, the BSD-licensed product is a non-profit project, whereas the commercial companies have created closed-source versions of the FOSS product. Perhaps I am biased, but it seems to me that in that constellation, less code is made open source.
With MySQL, we have the entire DBMS under GPL and for anyone and everyone to use and modify, so we think this model results in more FOSS code. MySQL Cluster, which I mentioned in my first posting above, is in my mind a great example. We then build our commercial value proposition on the notion of certified binaries, services and tools. That's our way of maximising FOSS and revenues in one go. But, as one can note from this
Marten
I have made bigger mistakes in my life when taking things too lightly than we taking them too seriously - so, yes, really.
But of course if it would turn out that I don't know how to run the businesss, then I am sure our board would be delighted to hear from you, as you seem to hint that you know how to do that.
To all Slashdotters,
Your comments are appreciated and we take your input seriously. Just to make sure that all facts are correct: we have not closed the source. MySQL continues to be GPL as before.
We have only made a change in relation to binaries. Community binaries are available as before, MySQL Enterprise binaries are provided to our customers. We are highly grateful both for those who count themselves as users and those who count themselves as customers. And the binaries are produced from GPL source code so of course you are all in your full rights to modify, compile, redistribute etc. as before.
The rapid innovation rate in and around MySQL is very much a reasult of the product being licensed under the GPL. Look for instance at MySQL Cluster and MySQL Proxy which are innovations from us, or at the SPASQL modification made by Eric Prud'hommeaux: http://www.w3.org/2005/05/22-SPARQL-MySQL/XTech
I look forward to more of your comments and suggestions.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Raven737,
I am sorry if we are losing the trust you have in us at MySQL AB.
We have a simple ambition of building a commercially successful business that is built on top of great GPL software. We have a community edition for those who are ready to spend time to save money, and a commercial edition (MySQL Enterprise) for those who are ready to spend money to save time. Both are GPL and live up to all requirements of that licence.
We continually finetune this model and make changes, and as doing so we may at times upset our users or make a mistake. I don't think the change we now made was a mistake, but I am very keen to hear your opinion and also your suggestion on how we can best serve the two groups we have (users and customers). Feel free to send me an email (it's easy to guess what my email address is) so we can engage in a discussion.
Obviously I am a big believer in our model, but wouldn't you also agree that we have brought some great innovations (whether created by the community or by us) to the FOSS world in recent years? I am thinking of MySQL Cluster and the storage engine architecture in general, and more recently MySQL Proxy, etc. Without a functioning business model we would not be able to run such projects or do the QA or other work that is required in addition to the design and coding.
Looking forward to your comments and hoping we can rebuild the trust.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
MySQL *is* completely Free and Open Source Software (FOSS). All you have to do is licence your own application under a FOSS licence, and there will never be an obligation for you to pay anybody a fee for using MySQL.
The motto of MySQL and of the GPL licence is "share, and share alike" meaning that we eagerly share it openly and free of charge with those who themselves share their source code with others.
The only ones who would suffer from this principle are the ones who are building a closed-source product to distribute for a fee, and to those we are happy to sell MySQL under a commercial licence. We think this is a great principle of fairness.
This is also a key reason to why we can keep hiring top database developers all over the world, pay them good salaries, and continue to publish all the code they produce under a FOSS licence. We think that full-time open source developers deserve to get paid for their work. Don't you?
I hope this makes sense to you, and if not, let me know. All the best in building your business!
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Thank you for assuming that we will reach that level!
Seriously, sure that can be an issue, but getting there takes 20-30 years in the software industry. In the meantime the world will evolve and there will be some new entrepreneur with a revolutionary way to manage data, and that will be the growth story, and whoever is the huge leader at the time will have to deal with this.
Marten
I must say I disagree with your analysis of IPO. But let's first back up. It was in 2001 that the founders of MySQL decided to get venture capital on board and to go for business growth and an IPO or an acquisition in the future. I don't know if you were around back then, but that would have been the right time to ask why the founders wanted an IPO.
Then to your analysis. I believe that an IPO has the opportunity to boost your financial resources for a very long time. I also believe that you don't have to lose control over your company. Control is lost (in my mind) if and when a company stops to grow - no matter whether the company is public or private. Even if you own all of a private company - if it does not grow then you don't have too many options as to how to run it. So although you may not have lost control to another shareholder, you have essentially lost control to the circumstances.
And then there are other benefits of IPO. It gives you a currency for making acqusitions. It gives you exposure and typically add to your credibility among conservative customers. And it can be highly inspirational for the employees.
Make sense?
Marten
For part of your questions, see my response to another question on this thread:
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=232285&thresh
And here comes more risk analysis:
Risk of "pump and dump" investors driving MySQL strategy in the wrong direction. - Naturally a company will have to follow the instructions from its shareholders, but we believe that we have and will have strong and long-term investors who understand the value of strategic resilience. These investors will encourage us to invest in what gives the best value over time.
Risk of quick return to investors negatively affecting the MySQL entity or application. - I actually believe the opposite - that a successful IPO for MySQL will give us a boost in innovation and development. I believe that as a public company MySQL would attract even more innovative partners and brilliant employees.
Marten
P.S. I can of course be wrong in my risk assessments here and in other responses on this thread. That's why I post them for all of you to read - in the hope that you will provide your feedback and suggestions.
Here is my quick view of risks with going public, and how we are dealing with them:
Risk of being bought out. - The best protection against this is fast growth. If a company doesn't grow, then it is at risk of being bought no matter whether it is private or public, large or small. (So if you want to contribute to us - then refer us to as many paying customers as you can!)
Risk of company culture becoming too corporate-like. - We try to avoid this by being very focused on cultivating our unique values. We add more structure and more procedures all the time, but we also try to stay free from bureaucracy and we always encourage our employees to make bold decisions.
Risk of openness being at risk as a public company. - We make sure that all our investors (current and future) understand that the freedom of our software is vital to the success of MySQL. We also try to be open about everything else: bugs, plans, events, etc. But here we also know there will be something of a difference when going public: we will have to abide strictly by SEC rules and not disclose financial or other vital business information in any other way than publicly to everyone at given points in time.
Feel free to list more risks and I will be happy to address them.
Marten
Thanks everyone for the comments! Let me first note that there was no specific news item in the article referred to at the top. We have had plans for IPO for several years. We don't see an IPO as an end-goal, but as a natural step in the evolution and growth of MySQL.
As many of you will know, when a company brings in venture capital (VC) as we did 6 years ago, you essentially set a plan to either be acquired or go public (IPO) after some time. We think that MySQL is a great business and one that can and should be independent and do an IPO at some point.
We share a passion for open source business - i.e. a passion to demonstrate what great businesses you can build on open source. And we want to provide the best database developers with great rewards: the good feeling of producing a product that changes the world, and the financial reward that comes with business success.
We have numerous users and customers ask us about buying MySQL stock. Today we are privately held and there are no shares for sale, but once we go public anyone can buy shares in our company. And being a public company we will have more strength to grow, to hire more great developers, and to serve new customers.
Does this make sense to you? It does to us.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Thanks for the questions!
The customer count is over several years. Yes, the majority of our users choose not to pay. The current ratio is something like 1 in 1,000. But as you probably know as an open source user, there is great benefit to a project also from the ones who don't pay.
Those who pay do it for the value-add they receive: production support, scheduled binaries with only bug fixes, the monitoring and advisory servce, etc. From a business perspective the great thing is that the ratio of paid to non-paid is changing and our business is steadily growing.
We are proud at MySQL to build something that has great value to the FOSS communities and is a great business at the same time.
Sorry to hear that you don't like MySQL, but great to see that you nevertheless take time to read
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Rorschach1,
:-) In either case, we get very good gas mileage by comparison!
Indeed we view MySQL competing in different markets from the legacy closed source databases. We have focused on new applications, often web-based systems, ecommerce, reporting, analysis and so on, rather than traditional ERP applications. There are many features that DB2 and Oracle have of which they are very proud. And we are also proud *not* to have all of the complexity of those features. Our focus is not on features, but on reliability, ease of use and performance.
Charles Phillips of Oracle remarked at a conference I was speaking at that Oracle and MySQL are both in the transportation business, but Oracle is the 747 and MySQL is the Toyota. I think that is a very apt analogy. But if you prefer the M1A2 tank, so be it.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Thanks everyone for the interesting comments. It's a good discussion and I think there have been some good points made. I see Oracle and MySQL serving two distinct markets, so in most cases we are not competitors.
One point of clarification: I never said that Oracle has threatened MySQL. (I think this may have been the writer's editorial comment.) Instead, I view it as a positive thing that Oracle distributes MySQL. I have often suggested that Oracle should distribute MySQL and I've made the same suggestion to Microsoft. Perhaps Oracle, Microsoft or IBM will provide support for MySQL and that could be good for open source in general. (And note that Red Hat, HP and others already do so.)
If people want to buy support for MySQL from Oracle, that's great. And of course, if they want to buy it from us, we are fine with that also.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB