39 ms·

I think the problem is that he would have to fork from the GPL'd version, which means he can't sell a proprietary fork. (Someone please correct me as I am most

by joshu 17y ago

I think the problem is that he would have to fork from the GPL'd version, which means he can't sell a proprietary fork. (Someone please correct me as I am most probably wrong)

jacquesm 17y ago
He already sold it as proprietary, so that really shouldn't be a problem at all. Ostensibly his concerns are for MySQL, not his pocketbook.
- spooneybarger 17y ago
  The only version he can fork is the GPL - no ability to do the split license from before. So his desired business model is out the window unless we all get together and 'save mysql' thereby allowing him to make money off it again.
  - jacquesm 17y ago
    Yes, that was my point.
- gte910h 17y ago
  Naw, the issue is he had a greedy dual licensing scheme that didn't properly allow proprietary development on top of the GPL version. (Linux has an exception in the GPL which specifically allows proprietary development on top without forcing GPL adoption].
cabalamat 17y ago
> I think the problem is that he would have to fork from the GPL'd version, which means he can't sell a proprietary fork. That's my understanding too. Maybe he could fork MySQL, and create some tools roun it that also work for other SQLs (Postgres, SQLite, MS-SQL, etc). He could use the dual-licensing approach for these tools (since they are not tied to MySQL)
gte910h 17y ago
The issue is that you can't write non-open source programs on it anymore. You have to write JUST GPL programs with it. It doesn't have a linking exception like Linux does [which allows you to write non-GPL programs to run on it]. Basically, the dude used pure GPL [a bad idea in my book] with no linking exceptions. He did this to make $$$$ off of the dual licensing scam that MySql AB [The company] was doing. He then sold the company, and got bit in the ass, because you can't make a useful fork of the application due to the overly restrictive license [which pure GPL is for a library, such as MySQL]. Basically, if you wrote a proprietary app that uses MySQL, you're hosed if regulators don't block this.
- gojomo 17y ago
  You're right, but I think 'scam' is too harsh a word. Reserving the right to create non-GPL'd versions is a legitimate business model and way to finance copyleft software. It's just that since it was an allowable strategy for MySQL AB, it should be allowable for Oracle Corporation, too. FWIW, a variant of the same business model was used by Sleepycat Software for the BerkeleyDB family of products -- which have continued to be supported and improved and sold since Oracle acquired them.
  - gte910h 17y ago
    I view the idea of pure GPL when used in libraries as a overly idealistic concept that doesn't really fit with people trying to develop software for the real world. GPL is fine for libraries, if it has exceptions for building on top of it (but if has that, why aren't you using LGPL...), but without that, only other open source projects can really use it, and few of them at that will use the code. Public domain, BSD, MIT, Apache etc are much more useful and free for the purposes of 99% of the world for libraries. MySQL AB did not explicitly set out REAL exemptions to make lots of development legal, however they were wink wink nod nod allowing all sorts of things, so now the developers who built on it are likely screwed, as they need to have oracle issue the same sort of wink wink nod nod statements themselves, or explicitly relicense the whole thing. MySQL is the HUGE competitor for Oracle's main product on the medium sized deployment target. I for one hope the regulators don't approve if Oracle isn't forced to change the licensing to more link Linux (link exception) or to a more permissive license (Apache/MIT/BSD), like the de facto licensing regime was. >. It's just that since it was an allowable strategy for MySQL AB, it should be allowable for Oracle Corporation, too I thought it shady as hell back when MySQL AB was independent too, but the issue is that Oracle puts out a competing product. By buying MySQL, they basically acquire their main competitor and have power to jack up the prices everyone pays for DB software in the simple case, or guide the MySQL product to areas to make it less competitive with Oracle in the more subtle case (thereby making the public less well served).

by joshu 17y ago

I think the problem is that he would have to fork from the GPL'd version, which means he can't sell a proprietary fork. (Someone please correct me as I am most probably wrong)

jacquesm 17y ago

He already sold it as proprietary, so that really shouldn't be a problem at all. Ostensibly his concerns are for MySQL, not his pocketbook.

spooneybarger 17y ago
The only version he can fork is the GPL - no ability to do the split license from before. So his desired business model is out the window unless we all get together and 'save mysql' thereby allowing him to make money off it again.
- jacquesm 17y ago
  Yes, that was my point.
gte910h 17y ago
Naw, the issue is he had a greedy dual licensing scheme that didn't properly allow proprietary development on top of the GPL version. (Linux has an exception in the GPL which specifically allows proprietary development on top without forcing GPL adoption].

cabalamat 17y ago

> I think the problem is that he would have to fork from the GPL'd version, which means he can't sell a proprietary fork. That's my understanding too. Maybe he could fork MySQL, and create some tools roun it that also work for other SQLs (Postgres, SQLite, MS-SQL, etc). He could use the dual-licensing approach for these tools (since they are not tied to MySQL)

gte910h 17y ago

The issue is that you can't write non-open source programs on it anymore. You have to write JUST GPL programs with it. It doesn't have a linking exception like Linux does [which allows you to write non-GPL programs to run on it]. Basically, the dude used pure GPL [a bad idea in my book] with no linking exceptions. He did this to make $$$$ off of the dual licensing scam that MySql AB [The company] was doing. He then sold the company, and got bit in the ass, because you can't make a useful fork of the application due to the overly restrictive license [which pure GPL is for a library, such as MySQL]. Basically, if you wrote a proprietary app that uses MySQL, you're hosed if regulators don't block this.

gojomo 17y ago
You're right, but I think 'scam' is too harsh a word. Reserving the right to create non-GPL'd versions is a legitimate business model and way to finance copyleft software. It's just that since it was an allowable strategy for MySQL AB, it should be allowable for Oracle Corporation, too. FWIW, a variant of the same business model was used by Sleepycat Software for the BerkeleyDB family of products -- which have continued to be supported and improved and sold since Oracle acquired them.
- gte910h 17y ago
  I view the idea of pure GPL when used in libraries as a overly idealistic concept that doesn't really fit with people trying to develop software for the real world. GPL is fine for libraries, if it has exceptions for building on top of it (but if has that, why aren't you using LGPL...), but without that, only other open source projects can really use it, and few of them at that will use the code. Public domain, BSD, MIT, Apache etc are much more useful and free for the purposes of 99% of the world for libraries. MySQL AB did not explicitly set out REAL exemptions to make lots of development legal, however they were wink wink nod nod allowing all sorts of things, so now the developers who built on it are likely screwed, as they need to have oracle issue the same sort of wink wink nod nod statements themselves, or explicitly relicense the whole thing. MySQL is the HUGE competitor for Oracle's main product on the medium sized deployment target. I for one hope the regulators don't approve if Oracle isn't forced to change the licensing to more link Linux (link exception) or to a more permissive license (Apache/MIT/BSD), like the de facto licensing regime was. >. It's just that since it was an allowable strategy for MySQL AB, it should be allowable for Oracle Corporation, too I thought it shady as hell back when MySQL AB was independent too, but the issue is that Oracle puts out a competing product. By buying MySQL, they basically acquire their main competitor and have power to jack up the prices everyone pays for DB software in the simple case, or guide the MySQL product to areas to make it less competitive with Oracle in the more subtle case (thereby making the public less well served).