

Help save MySQL - bytebot
http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-saving-mysql.html

======
ZachPruckowski
Groklaw, a well-respected blog that deals with open source legal issues, seems
to have a different take on it, namely that Widenius, as operator of a
competing database company based on a fork of MySQL, pretty much just wants to
strip the GPL from MySQL so that he and others can develop completely closed-
source databases based on it.

Article: <http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20091208104422384>

His blog post sounds all pro-open-source until you get down to the
suggestions, where it several times references forcing Oracle to relicense
more permissively (removing restrictions against closed-source derivatives)
while also denying Oracle the right to make closed-source modules. It sounds
like the guy sold MySQL for a billion dollars, and now wants to be handed the
rights to use the code in a closed source program while denying Oracle (who
paid for Sun who paid for MySQL) the ability to do the same.

~~~
bad_user
> _pretty much just wants to strip the GPL from MySQL so that he and others
> can develop completely closed-source databases based on it._

So what's the problem with that?

~~~
ig1
Legally nothing. But he used to have to right to do that (the MySql dual
licence), but he sold it for a large amount of money to Sun. Now he's arguing
that if Oracle buys Sun they should give away for free that same right he
sold.

If he truly believed that it should be free, he could have made it free when
he owned it. He wants the benefit of selling it (money) and the benefits of
not selling it (ownership) at the same time. He's trying to use the open
source community for his own commercial self-interest.

That's why people are finding it objectionable.

------
davidw
The Cynic: he certainly wasn't raising this big a stink when he was selling
Mysql off to Sun for a great deal of money.

~~~
davidw
I felt irritated enough about this to write about it:

[http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/12/13/mysql-oracle-and-
the-e...](http://journal.dedasys.com/2009/12/13/mysql-oracle-and-the-european-
commission)

~~~
alttab
Extremely clear, thought out, and well written.

Good job sir.

------
dantheman
I honestly don't understand the problem; below I'll present the situation as I
see it, please correct me if I am wrong.

The argument is this: 1\. MySQL is an open source project. 2\. Oracle is going
to control MySQL. 3\. Oracle will try to kill MySQL.

If that happens, why won't a new organization spring up and fork MySQL
(perhaps NewMySQL) and continue to actively maintain it?

To try and use the law to stop this from happening is hardly something I could
support. Once you sell your company you no longer have control of it, you
cannot receive the benefits of the sale and then try to force the government
to prevent them from doing something you do not agree with.

~~~
antirez
This is the answer: [http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-
license...](http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-
model-of-mysql-or.html)

Basically organizations that are putting money and work on MySQL absolutely
require to get licenses, or in other words, the GPL is not good for this guys
because they have to do their stuff with parts of closed source software and
so forth.

The problem is the GPL _clearly_ : it allows you to earn money selling
licenses, but I don't like the model:

1\. You start a GPLed open source project.

2\. Then start to sell licenses to make the software like if it was BSD only
for paying customers: PROFIT

3\. The you get in troubles... like MySQL.

4\. You ask for help to the community...

 _Edit:_ I'm claiming the GPL is always a bad idea, but it depends on the kind
of project. For instance it worked very well for Linux, but does not work so
well in other contexts when it's highly likely that companies require to use
the code in ways not allowed by the GPL for legitimate business needs (that
is, not just to create a closed source version of the project).

~~~
dantheman
It looks like they should have released it with an MIT or BSD license.

I guess they could always take the Billion dollars they received for it, and
create a new database company and completely rewrite a new database engine. Or
use that money to fund an organization to maintain development.

~~~
rbanffy
If they had, they would have competition from day one. MySQL enjoyed the
monopoly of selling proprietary licenses to their clients.

So much, in fact, Monty still wants it after having sold the company for an
obscene amount of money.

------
pmorici
If there is so much concern about MySQL's future perhaps he should have
considered that _before_ selling MySQL to Sun in the first place.

~~~
mtts
To get it into the enterprise, I guess.

------
mseebach
No, I will not write a politician to get him to "save" your business.

This is exactly like bankers getting rich from risky investments, then turning
to the government for a bailout once the going gets tough.

------
oomkiller
I think I'll just stick with PostgreSQL, and save myself from all of this
political BS.

~~~
mark_l_watson
Not to mention nice add-ons like PostGIS. MySQL is simpler to set up in
master-slave configurations, but except for that, PostgreSQL is almost always
my choice.

~~~
oomkiller
Yes, PostGIS is awesome. I have run into some issues with multi-master
replication, I was quiet surprised when I saw how easy it was on MySQL.

------
camccann
Since the overall reaction to this seems pretty negative, a moment of "devil's
advocate":

Yes, he sold MySQL--to Sun, not Oracle. I imagine he expected that Sun would
continue MySQL's business model. He got lots of money, Sun got a new revenue
stream, the customers kept doing what they had been doing, everyone was happy.

Call him naive for assuming things wouldn't change, but it's not like he
_knowingly_ sold MySQL to a company that wouldn't necessarily be interested in
preserving the existing MySQL user community. Bashing him for only raising the
issue now may be a bit unfair.

That said, I'm not particularly sympathetic either.

------
zaidf
It wouldn't be the first time a company acquired another to kill competition.
That doesn't automatically make it anti-competitive.

------
blhack
Please forgive my ignorance as I am _far_ from any sort of database guru,
but...so what?

Mysql does everything I want and probably more since, as I said, I am no guru;
there are probably tons of things I would use and don't even know about. I
very much doubt that sun plans to (or could) come banging down my door
demanding that I pay them for a license or stop using their newly acquired
software.

I guess my point is that mysql does everything that I want. If nothing new
comes out, this is not a big deal to me. If it turns out that there is some
new feature that i want, and mysql doesn't have it, I will have to switch to a
database that _does_.

Could somebody explain why I should care about this? It seems like people are
crying over spilled milk that hasn't even been spilled yet. "Oh no! There
might be features that might have been developed for mysql at some point in
the future that I might miss out on!"

?

~~~
mtts
Like any software product, MySQL has bugs. You might not run across them in
day to day use, but they're there. If development stops, those will never get
fixed.

~~~
plaes
Actually MySQL last stable version was released with at least two critical
issues left unresolved...

I've mostly moved over to PostgreSQL by now...

------
antirez
Is this the result of MySQL adopting the GPL license? I mean, what about if
MySQL were BSD licensed?

~~~
davidw
That's another can of worms. If it were BSD licensed, they would not have made
so much money, because they couldn't have done the dual-licensing trick.

~~~
antirez
Indeed, this is surely a price to pay, BSD will hardly make you rich even with
a very successful product, but the project itself is much more protected
probably.

~~~
rbanffy
Actually not.

When it's GPL'ed, there can be no proprietary forks. Companies who depend on
the product will continue to maintain it and all source will still be
available as keeping an internal fork is costlier.

If a program is BSD'ed, there is nothing to prevent a company to close it and
start selling it as proprietary.

~~~
antirez
Proprietary forks are an illusion. The value of the project is in its
developers, to take the code, close it, and develop it getting external
developers, good ideas, and so forth, is a massive amount of work. This is why
you can think of tons of BSD-ish very successful projects not forked.

Instead the _real_ risk is that GPL is not free enough.

~~~
davidw
> Proprietary forks are an illusion.

The most famous counter example is SunOS, which was directly based on the
Berkeley code.

Of course, times are different now - the internet has changed a lot of things.

~~~
rbanffy
And most of what's left of SunOS is GPLv3.

------
IgorPartola
Who are we to tell Oracle to devote their resources to something that we think
needs development? They own Sun and MySQL. If this does not suit someone: fork
it. End of story.

------
yannis
Just send an email as Michael Widenius suggested. Every little bit counts!

~~~
davidw
As a resident (but not a citizen) of Europe, I sent an email telling them that
I think they should let the acquisition happen as is, with no strings
attached.

------
gojomo
There is no 'Undo' for selling your copyright.

Has Widenius offered to buy MySQL back?

------
ilkhd2
MySQL is already lost. It is necessary to focus on Postgres now. It still
seems to be non-private.

~~~
davidw
Technically, Postgres has always been more or less superior, outside of a few
things like replication. But that's another argument for another day.

~~~
prodigal_erik
Our DBAs once walked in and asked how to handle all the rows where most of
slaves have different values than the master. That this is even possible, I
think says it all about MySQL replication.

