4 ms·

Here's the letter to the EC written by Stallman et al the OP is referring to: http://keionline.org/ec-mysql http://keionline.org/ec-mysql . Shocking of eWeek to

by keyist 17y ago

Here's the letter to the EC written by Stallman et al the OP is referring to: http://keionline.org/ec-mysql http://keionline.org/ec-mysql . Shocking of eWeek to leave out the link. The key paragraphs imo are: "As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform. The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers [...]" No license can fully protect users from developer inactivity or not knowing where to go when they have problems. In this case the problem is particularly acute because MySQL AB has been known as the go-to place for a long time, and this may no longer be viable in the event of Oracle's acquisition. EDIT: Simon Phipps (Sun) wrote an eloquent piece about the dual licensing aspect: http://www.webmink.net/2009/10/remarkable-reversal.htm http://www.webmink.net/2009/10/remarkable-reversal.htm

protomyth 17y ago
I am in awe of the thinking that a commercial option is needed for MySQL and that Stallman agrees with that. It just seems so counter to all the comments on the GPL. I don't really see the support argument, a lot of software gets orphaned. Companies need to have plans for this kind of stuff. They are better off here because they might be able to hire people to fix compatibility issues until they can migrate to another platform. I think "major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform" is kinda bs given the existence of postgresql.
- tensor 17y ago
  I completely agree with your first paragraph. It is amazing to see Stallman, the very founder and long time advocate of "Free" software and the GPL, admitting that a closed and open approach to software is needed. That seems very different than what he has always preached. Then again, perhaps I have not listened to his speech in enough depth.
- mscarborough 17y ago
  Regardless of whether there is a 'commercial' option for the source code itself, there is plenty going on with GPL-based development and an alternative for InnoDB led by Monty Widenius (Monty AB's development of the Maria Engine should lessen the concern due to Oracle's purchase of InnoBase and their patent ownership / 'original author' status). It's already been discussed at length, so I'll just say I'm not convinced it's in Oracle's best interest to try to kill off InnoDB in order to decrease consumer options for MySQL. I guess we'll see what they do if the EC approves. But the market for 'commercial services' around MySQL is doing just fine -- Percona and MontyDB being the most obvious (more here: http://lwn.net/Articles/329626/ http://lwn.net/Articles/329626/). Not an endorsement, but our team decided to start using Percona and it's been OK; over the last couple years we didn't end up using MySQL AB's support that much anyway.
- rbanffy 17y ago
  Where is Richard Stallman and what did they do to him? Now, on a more serious tone, a program dies when nobody uses or is interested on it. MySQL will inevitably die someday, replaced by something better, much like MySQL itself replaced mSQL. The GPL will make its source available forever, protecting users who may be interested in continuing it. As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its BSD licensing provides no such protection. If people lose interest in it, it will probably evolve some more in the form of EnterpriseDB and the source may be lost or locked up forever. Isn't Drizzle a worthy successor to MySQL?
  - protomyth 17y ago
    The dead and forgotten code issue will affect BSD or GPL in the same way. When people lose interest, it will disappear except for maybe some archives. I would say the BSD license might last longer given that a company might pay more attention to it since it can live in their code. The GPL provides no protection from disinterest and (given the article) ticked off companies. If MySQL were BSD, it wouldn't really matter what Oracle did, there would be no commercial license problems and it could thrive in a different home more easily. Drizzle is still GPL with no possibility of a commercial license unless they rewrite all the code. https://answers.launchpad.net/drizzle/+faq/135 https://answers.launchpad.net/drizzle/+faq/135
    - rbanffy 17y ago
      But if no one pays attention to a given piece of code, is it really worth to maintain it?
      - protomyth 17y ago
        Truthfully, as much as I respect the work, no. I don't think code is like literature where it might be relevant and understood years after creation. The best that can be hoped for is that the hidden gems live on in other code.
  - bad_user 17y ago
    > program dies when nobody uses or is interested on it ... The GPL will make its source available forever ... As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its BSD licensing provides no such protection A software application also dies when you can't use it for your purposes anymore, even when you're willing to pay-up. This letter from Stallman actually highlights the hypocrisy behind GPL (not LGPL, just GPL). PostgreSQL's source code will never be lost, and it saddens me that many people perpetuate such a myth. If people lose interest in it, there's always going to be an archive out there with the latest released version. And I find it hard to believe that people would prefer EnterpriseDB over PostgreSQL since the BSD license is what made it shine in the first place. MySql and PostgreSql are actual threats to Oracle's profit margins. Guess which one they picked to kill.

by keyist 17y ago

protomyth 17y ago

I am in awe of the thinking that a commercial option is needed for MySQL and that Stallman agrees with that. It just seems so counter to all the comments on the GPL. I don't really see the support argument, a lot of software gets orphaned. Companies need to have plans for this kind of stuff. They are better off here because they might be able to hire people to fix compatibility issues until they can migrate to another platform. I think "major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform" is kinda bs given the existence of postgresql.

tensor 17y ago
I completely agree with your first paragraph. It is amazing to see Stallman, the very founder and long time advocate of "Free" software and the GPL, admitting that a closed and open approach to software is needed. That seems very different than what he has always preached. Then again, perhaps I have not listened to his speech in enough depth.
mscarborough 17y ago
Regardless of whether there is a 'commercial' option for the source code itself, there is plenty going on with GPL-based development and an alternative for InnoDB led by Monty Widenius (Monty AB's development of the Maria Engine should lessen the concern due to Oracle's purchase of InnoBase and their patent ownership / 'original author' status). It's already been discussed at length, so I'll just say I'm not convinced it's in Oracle's best interest to try to kill off InnoDB in order to decrease consumer options for MySQL. I guess we'll see what they do if the EC approves. But the market for 'commercial services' around MySQL is doing just fine -- Percona and MontyDB being the most obvious (more here: http://lwn.net/Articles/329626/ http://lwn.net/Articles/329626/). Not an endorsement, but our team decided to start using Percona and it's been OK; over the last couple years we didn't end up using MySQL AB's support that much anyway.
rbanffy 17y ago
Where is Richard Stallman and what did they do to him? Now, on a more serious tone, a program dies when nobody uses or is interested on it. MySQL will inevitably die someday, replaced by something better, much like MySQL itself replaced mSQL. The GPL will make its source available forever, protecting users who may be interested in continuing it. As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its BSD licensing provides no such protection. If people lose interest in it, it will probably evolve some more in the form of EnterpriseDB and the source may be lost or locked up forever. Isn't Drizzle a worthy successor to MySQL?
- protomyth 17y ago
  The dead and forgotten code issue will affect BSD or GPL in the same way. When people lose interest, it will disappear except for maybe some archives. I would say the BSD license might last longer given that a company might pay more attention to it since it can live in their code. The GPL provides no protection from disinterest and (given the article) ticked off companies. If MySQL were BSD, it wouldn't really matter what Oracle did, there would be no commercial license problems and it could thrive in a different home more easily. Drizzle is still GPL with no possibility of a commercial license unless they rewrite all the code. https://answers.launchpad.net/drizzle/+faq/135 https://answers.launchpad.net/drizzle/+faq/135
  - rbanffy 17y ago
    But if no one pays attention to a given piece of code, is it really worth to maintain it?
    - protomyth 17y ago
      Truthfully, as much as I respect the work, no. I don't think code is like literature where it might be relevant and understood years after creation. The best that can be hoped for is that the hidden gems live on in other code.
- bad_user 17y ago
  > program dies when nobody uses or is interested on it ... The GPL will make its source available forever ... As for PostgreSQL, it saddens me to say its BSD licensing provides no such protection A software application also dies when you can't use it for your purposes anymore, even when you're willing to pay-up. This letter from Stallman actually highlights the hypocrisy behind GPL (not LGPL, just GPL). PostgreSQL's source code will never be lost, and it saddens me that many people perpetuate such a myth. If people lose interest in it, there's always going to be an archive out there with the latest released version. And I find it hard to believe that people would prefer EnterpriseDB over PostgreSQL since the BSD license is what made it shine in the first place. MySql and PostgreSql are actual threats to Oracle's profit margins. Guess which one they picked to kill.