MySQL & Nusphere 126
This is an update to the story a few days ago about the dispute between MySQL AB and NuSphere. MySQL AB has put up a FAQ about the dispute (note that it mentions lawsuits filed by both parties), and both parties have posted to the MySQL mailing list with more information: NuSphere's post, and MySQL AB's response.
Can't we ALL (Score:1)
Some More stupid shit, funny though [askadick.com]
Re:Your post is the only thing deluding (Score:1)
We are looking for talented individuals to contribute to the community. For those willing to help maintain the code, documentation, or support resources, please email support@mysql.org.
That's not something you normally hear from an party that isn't the developer of a product. It's deceptive at the very least, since they're not making it clear that they aren't the original authors or the current "official" maintainers.
Good for the community (Score:1)
Listen carefully... (Score:1)
1. Bill Gates laughing himself silly over how publicly this latest open source food fight is being waged.
2. Hundreds, maybe thousands, of corporate decision makers crossing MySQL off their list of products to investigate. With Red Hat about to release their version of PostgreSQL, this is incredibly bad timing, to say the least.
One more thing--I'm surprised no one has pointed out that this is exactly the same kind of pointless turf war that resulted in the fragmentation of commercial Unix products years ago. Everyone is jockeying for the slightest perceived commercial advantage, losing sight of the big picture, and harming themselves and users. Very sad...
Please explain to me (Score:5)
Yes, i realize this may be a bit offtopic. I'm just hoping to see if i can get some informed opinions while we're vaguely on the subject without it degenerating into a huge flamewar..
Postgres seems to offer a vaguely more robust feature set than mysql, but it seems to be a given that mysql is the product to go with and postgres is just kind of ehh, whatever, yeah it's out there. Why is this? Speed and speed alone?
What is it which leads mysql to be viewed as the default solution for the open-source community, given its featureset is by some accounts a bit minimal? What does it offer over postgresql?
For the record: i have used mysql in several situations, done perl DBI programming with mysql, and never used postgres. Moreover i have a perl database-backed-website [everydevel.com] library that i am interested in using but am not *quite* certain will work with any DBMS except Mysql. I am just curious as to my options, and wondering if someone could tell me what i am missing.. thanks.
Seems to me... (Score:2)
that both sides should just go back to the negotiating table and put this silly shit behind them. It's not doing anyone any good and it's giving corporate drones a good excuse to just buy SQLServer from Microsoft instead. C'mon guys -- learn to suck it up and make some compromises. NuSphere definitely needs to get off their ass and GPL the Gemini code yesterday, and they both need to work at resolving this. There's plenty of room for two commercial companies supporting MySQL without playing dirty tricks or slinging mud.
BTW -- Just b/c you GPL something doesn't mean you give up the rights to the name of the program, just that others have rights to the CODE. If I create something I have (unless I share them) exclusive rights to the name, and NO that doesn't go against the spirit of the GPL or take any rights away from users. It just means that corporation B can't fuck corporation A that's spent five years building brand recognition without screwing its customers. As far as the BSD license being the answer, you've got to be kidding. Why create something just to get robbed a few years later when a larger company appropriates it without giving anything back? That's just frigging stupid.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:4)
Not even this. MySQL is not faster than PostgreSQL for non-trivial problems. The myth that MySQL is faster seems to be perpetuated by the same people who claim XFree86 is slow.
The problem is benchmarks, of course. MySQL looks great in benchmarks but because it has basically no features you have to implement all the missing functionality (eg, locks, rollback) in your application. The end result is something that looked brilliantly fast in your benchmarks and is somehow much much slower than PostgreSQL in your final product.
Of course IANADBM and I'm sure some MySQL fanatic will now say how wrong I am and how "this benchmark they just did" proves it.
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:2)
You are correct in that this is all an argument over a name (well, there is the separate GPL violation thing as well). However, it shouldn't surprise you that the MySQL AB folks would be upset over how NuSphere is using their name. I imagine that I showed up at your job, with a drivers license that said Chanc Gorkon and "borrowed" your paycheck you would be pretty upset too.
The MySQL AB folks have done all the development work for MySQL. They wrote the entire piece of software, and now the Nusphere folks are trying to hijack not only the project, but MySQL's good name as well.
As for the "little OSS project" NuSphere, the folks that acquired the mysql.org web site, is actually a fairly large commercial database company. They even have another database that they sell (called Progress). Compared to NuSphere MySQL AB is tiny. In other words you have gotten your prejudices confused. MySQL AB is the tiny Free Software company. They have currently written every piece of MySQL. NuSphere, on the other hand, is the "corporation." They have release absolutely no code, but instead are illegally bundling a statically linked library with the GPLed MySQL binary (which is clearly a violation of the GPL).
This doesn't have anything to do with elitism. It has everything to do with a commercial software company trying to muscle the creators of MySQL right out of the business that they created with their own work. If NuSphere wants to build their own "enhanced" version of MySQL, they should 1) change the name (as it violates MySQL AB's trademark), and 2) release their extensions under the GPL as MySQL's license requires.
Re:Time to give it back (Score:2)
That's a fairly razor thin argument. If they just wanted to create a "community" site dedicated to the advancement of the MySQL database why didn't they simply fork the MySQL codebase (legal) and rename their project to something else (legal). The Open Source developers working on the Phoenix database did precisely that when they split off from Interbase.
NuSphere didn't write the MySQL software, and they haven't released any MySQL related source code. In fact, they are currently in violation of the GPL. Yet all of a sudden they should be the ones creating the "community" site?
What dope are you smoking, and why aren't you sharing with the rest of us?
Re:Listen carefully... (Score:2)
I couldn't agree more. Of course, if I was part of MySQL AB I would go to war too if someone was misusing my source and my trademark name. What else can they do?
On the other hand, poisoning the MySQL well might be NuSphere's intention. They do, after all sell another commercial database (Progress), the beast even runs on Linux.
This might be a good thing :). I am a very happy PostgreSQL user, and I personally think that it should get more use, it rocks. More importantly it stacks up in features against commercial databases like SQL Server. Comparing MySQL to Microsoft's SQL Server is ridiculous, but PostgreSQL compares relatively well (and the price is right).
About the license issue.. (Score:1)
MySQL AB is Absolutely Right! (Score:4)
If they allow their modifications to be downloaded by anyone, they have to make the source available to them. They can require a registration at their site without violating the GPL, but they cannot implement a separate click-through license agreement for GPL licensed code. The real issue is that they were not licensing their modifications under the GPL which is a requirement of the GPL license for MySQL.
Re:MySQL AB is Absolutely Right! (Score:4)
MySQL AB owns the copyright to the mysql code. NuSphere could enter into an agreement with MySQL AB to license the mysql code under a non-GPL license.
NuSphere claims that it did enter into an agreement with MySQL AB that allowed NuSphere to bundle the non-GPL Gemini with mysql code. MySQL AB claims that the agreement is no longer in effect. This is a case for the courts to decide.
Re:Time to give it back (Score:1)
They do not, however, claim to have created MySQL. Perhaps they should link to mysql.com out of courtesy, listing them as the primary developers.
Immature bickering. (Score:1)
As if the open source community didn't already have enough FUD to defend itself against...
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:Embarrassing (Score:1)
--
Gabriel Ricard
Linux Fanatic
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
s/mysql/windows/g;
Re:Please explain to me (Score:5)
Initially, yes. Once upon a time, PostgreSQL was just murderously slow. Its default config was part of the problem, but it just wasn't very zippy in general. It also had some issues with very kludgey BLOB support (not that that had any bearing on 95% of databases MySQL is used for).
Considering MySQL's track record in scalability, I rather doubt it can beat PostgreSQL in speed under load, same way a Peterbilt will beat a Porsche when you stick a 20 ton trailer behind each. I'm willing to bet slashdot would run faster with a postgresql backend, since submissions wouldn't have to be serialized.
--
Re:Good for the community (Score:2)
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
Hmmm... Interesting. Did you have a single process running the inserts or multiple ones. It has been previously claimed that PostgreSQL and O are better than MySQL for multi-user applications.
Re:emacs.com (Score:2)
In any event, you can see that the owners of emacs.com are in no way trying to pretend they are RMS and solicit support. That's the key difference; in trademark law, you normally own a trademark over a certain domain (i.e. computer software). If someone created a mysql drink, then the use of the mysql domain name would be perfectly legal under most circumstances, since the makers of the drink were not trying to pretend they were mysql.
D
----
Re:Emacs.com (Score:3)
The original emacs was developed at MIT in the late 1970s by RMS. It was originally written in Teco, a more primitive programmable text editor.
I know because I was there at the time.
D
----
Interesting. (Score:5)
An individual wise in the ways of the world would have registered mysql.com, net, org, etc to protect their trademark. It would have cost very little and would have prevented this problem. Sadly, then, Network Solutions is right in advertising that you should do this, even if their advice would seem a shade self-serving.
I am, however, quite curious to hear what Monty et al were paid $341,000-odd for. That's a pretty penny, and it seems like Nusphere should have gotten something in return.
Nonetheless, I think a thoughtful individual willing to delve deeper into the issues would most likely take Monty's side. He did develop mySQL, and the nature of the mysql.org site would appear to be highly deceptive and a misuse of mySQL's trademark.
I'll go after this by analogy: If someone created an emacs.com web site, claiming to represent the markers of that text editor, would RMS not be a tad upset at them taking his good name? This is the situation Monty is in. Remember, the main reward people get for pursuing a successful open source project is good publicity and ego satisfaction. If you take that away, you're bound to come up with problems.
Hope that helps give some perspective here.
D
----
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:1)
If they wanna fork, by all means do it. But they should try to make it a little more obvious about what they're doing than simply camping out at the dotorg website.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Adobe? (Score:2)
I can't speak for
Adobe has acted in a way more evil than I have ever noticed MS acting. Of course, MS does it more frequently...
If this is what a lawyer for a spokesman buys you, then a public spat is a small cost. I don't feel that either of these companies has acted one tenth as vilely as did Adobe.
And this is during the agrument for the MySQL fracas, and afterwards for KIllustrator.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Can't we ALL (Score:2)
The good things are that:
a) lots of people got to get excited, and think about MySQL, the GPL, PostGreSQL, and where they stood on all this.
b) nobody really got hurt.
If the court is quick, simple, and accepted by both sides, then this is probably a net win for the community. Otherwise,
N.B.: Putting up the code publically is a lot more than they are required to do. All that they are required is to furnish the code to anyone who got a binary from them in a legal manner, upon their request (for the next 3?, 5? years). A web site is a common way to do this, and public access is common. But neither are mandated by the GPL.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
From MySQL's licensing policy page [mysql.com]:
--
Can't comment on MySQL Co. (Score:1)
Because NuSphere's post talks about how they paid MySQL Co. for the 'right' to distribute MySQL under the GPL. Anyone's got that right, and the MySQL guy tore into them for that mistake. Absolutely clueless.
Re:NuSphere clearly violating 15 USC § 1125(d) (Score:1)
Unless you have access to the legal agreements and are a judge capable of understanding them (fat chance), your "blatent legal violations" is just more BS.
Before posting you should have to answer a key question from the article. Reading comprehension for the idiots who insist on posting ad naseum, making big fatty claims like "their other arguments are just sorry excuses" when their own posts are sorry excuses for ego building.
The FACTS of this case are not as simple as you like to make out with your smarmy legal citations. And if they are as clearcut as you make them out to be, MySQL will get a quick summery judgment. So please spare us your blather.
Re:Why are we bothered by this? (Score:2)
I remain convinced there is a lot of bogus and uneeded rhetoric going on here. Look forward to the resolution of the lawsuits, especially the trademark infringment one which will be the most interesting in terms of whether and how badly NuSphere has been violating the MySQL(r) trademark. I notice they even use it in their software products they sell. Illegal indeed, and a registered trademark offers quick protection.
Why are we bothered by this? (Score:3)
- the software is available without registration, I just tried it.
- There is a trademark issue, but unless everyone on slashdot is a lawyer who has reviewed the agreements signed, why do they have all this "insight" into the situation. Let the courts determine if mysql.org is legal, that's what they are there for.
- Michael Widenius from MySQL AB claims "I want to stress that to date, NuSphere has contributed nothing, no money or source, to the development of the MySQL(tm) server." See the original statement here [linuxtoday.com]
- This is a direct contradition to NuSphere's claims of having paid some amount of money to MySQL AB. Hopefully someone somewhere has kept a copy of any checks written and we can figure out just exactly who the basterd liar is here and who is not. For open source, sometimes the truth can be damn elusive. Let's stick to FACTS instead of crazed hype on both sides of the issue. What we do with liar when we find them I leave to the masses :)
- While I'd initially side with the MySQL AB folks, their press release is rediculous, as is their followup. This is not life and death, if they think NuSphere is violating the GPL they should have the FSF sue, or sue themselves and set a good precedent. I hate open source projects that go ape-crap. Please, give us some credit for inteligence. Looks like a lot of hot air to me. Aside from the legit trademark issue where we don't know what agreements were signed, I see a bit of posturing here.
- the software provided is under the GPL, a good thing
- Nusphere doesn't want to sign copyright over to mysql when that would mean mysql could then sell closed source versions for closed source products. That's their right, who cares it's all open sourced.
- So before jumping around like chickens based an another overhyped press release, be it a corporation complaining about theft, or MySQL AB claiming all kinds of pretty serious stuff, let's let it simmer for a few weeks and then get involved.
Re:hmm (Score:4)
Mod this post way down. It is the most unquestionably stupid and ill thought out post to reach even +1.
Slashdot would be a whole lot better if people thought for 10 minutes before posting as soon as possible.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Despite all the kvetching, the BSD license (especially with one of those 'advertisement clauses') could have made this a moot point. There's also no reason they couldn't have printed a GPL with an onerous advertisement clause.
Get over it. If one product is better than the other, than the market will choose it, the 'lesser' product will bring in the new code, and we'll start all over again.
Anyway, nobody is buying the fscking code. Who gives a rat's ass?
Is this a real thing, or did some dipshit VC put these guys (all of them) up to these lawsuits?
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
I realy wanted postgres to win, so I tested the latest version of postgres against mysql and a famous commercial database which shall not be named except to say that it's name starts with O.
Al three databases had about the same speed when doing queries on the indexed fields. On the inserts, the story was different: mysql with myISAM type database was the fastest. The commercial database and mySQL with BDB transaction database were an order of magnitude (10 times) slower than that.
And postgressql was an order of magnitude slower than the commercial database, or in other words, one insert into the postgressql database took about as much time as 100 inserts into the mySQL/myISAM database. This was with version 7.02 if memory serves (I may be wrong about the minor version, but the major version was definitely 7).
So to people who cry "benchmark this" and "benchmark that", I say: try the databases on your particular problem, and then decide what you will use.
Re:DECENCY != LAW (Score:1)
Untrue, both parties to this dispute seem to accept that MySQL AB also owns the copyright to MySQL, which they license under the GPL.
The question of whether NuSphere violated the GPL is a red herring. To all appearences, they are in blatent violation, and the FSF should sue their butts to smitherenes.
It's difficult to see how the FSF would have any case at all. What is the supposed connection between the FSF and MySQL?
It's MySQL AB who own the copyright to MySQL and who license it under the GPL, they are the ones who can sue for breaching their copyright, they are the ones who are in fact suing for breaching their copyright.
But (unless the contract states so explicitly) that violation has no bearing on the validity of their contract with MySQL AB laying out the terms of their use of the MySQL name
Correct. And the trademark issue likewise has no bearing on NuSphere's copyright violation in statically linking their proprietary code to MySQL AB's GPL'd code. There are two separate issues, that's no reason to just dismiss one of them.
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Mysql AB don't seem to think that NuSphere has anymore rights than anyone else. But if that is the case, what is the point in paying them 2.5 MUSD?
I agree it's an interesting question, but since NuSphere aren't being any more forthcoming than MySQL AB about exactly what the terms were , or even just a summary of the terms, it seems unlikely that the agreement clearly resolves the issue.
Just the fact that they paid a lot doesn't entitle them to receive a lot. Presumably they were happy with the terms of the contract, if it didn't actually get them much then that doesn't in any way entitle them to extra rights that weren't agreed to.
Re:hmm (Score:1)
Re:Unprofessionalism (Score:2)
Which Swedish statements by NuSphere were you using as a basis for comparison? Seriously, you're a pretty twisted individual if you want to believe bad things about someone based on their use of grammar in a foreign language. Oh, don't tell me, they "should" be a giant corporation employing marketing people to prepare their statements, otherwise they "should" be guilty of something.
Your reference to NuSphere knowing how to behave decently loses me complaetely. Given that they don't behave decently, for example by violating MySQLs GPL licence, what makes you think that they know how to? And to be honest, if they know how to behave decently but choose not to then that's worse than if they didn't know how to.
Honestly, I'm impressed... (Score:1)
that the MySQL AB response was as polite as it is. The personal affirmation of NuSphere's contributions strikes me as an extremely professional, given the fighting that's going on.
Re:Why are we bothered by this? (Score:5)
- the software is available without registration, I just tried it.
Neither of which was true before MySQL AB started to really bring the lawsuit to the public. Really look at the MySQL.org, it is trying to portray its self as the source of MySQL. It doesn't acknoledge MySQL AB, or try to give them credit for the work. It says it is the main support center for MySQL. MySQL AB has a valid complaint against the site.
- While I'd initially side with the MySQL AB folks, their press release is rediculous, as is their followup. This is not life and death, if they think NuSphere is violating the GPL they should have the FSF sue, or sue themselves and set a good precedent. I hate open source projects that go ape-crap. Please, give us some credit for inteligence. Looks like a lot of hot air to me. Aside from the legit trademark issue where we don't know what agreements were signed, I see a bit of posturing here.
It is not the FSF job to sue, but the copyright holder's job. I.e MySQL AB. FSF can only sue over the FSF's copyrighted software. They can assist another sueing over GPL violations but they are not a party in this suit.
- the software provided is under the GPL, a good thing
- Nusphere doesn't want to sign copyright over to mysql when that would mean mysql could then sell closed source versions for closed source products. That's their right, who cares it's all open sourced.
NuSphere does not provide all their modifications under open source. Their Gemini tables are not open sources at all. (Don't believe me, then go to their web site and look for the code. They're distributing there, but they are not distributing their additions to the code as well. I dare you to find the cod and show me where the code is? It's not there at all.) The code is nowhere. I don't think MySQL really cares if NuSphere's software has the copyright transfered or not. They do care about NuSphere misapproprating the GPL and their Trademarks in order to confuse who actually created MySQL.
Re:Time to give it back (Score:1)
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
mefus
--
um, er... eh -- *click*
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:1)
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
This is true with most of the commercial databases as well. Unfortunately the portability of SQL is mostly a myth. Try to write nontrivial SQL that runs on both Oracle and anything else and you'll see what I mean.
-Bruce
They are staging a war on the GPL... (Score:1)
"I told y'all so!"
-Adam
This sig 80% recycled bits, 20% post user.
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:1)
MySQL AB do not have that right either. They may hold copyright on the project but, being GPL, they cannot revoke its distribution conditions.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
PostgreSQL used to have a maximum row limit (8K i think) that kept it out of the question in many cases. This has been fixed, and, as this review by Tim Perdue [phpbuilder.com] has shown, PostgreSQL is now challenging MySQL in speed also.
So why are everyone still using MySQL, with all it's shortcomings?
You get the picture. MySQL isn't the most popular free DBMS because it's the best. This is not to say that there are valid reasons for using MySQL. But you can say the same thing about other software: What is the most popular and successful open source server OS? Linux. Which is the better server OS, Linux or FreeBSD? One could argue that FreeBSD is way better.
If you're almost convinced MySQL is the way to go, but would like a second opinion before deploying it, Why not MySQL? [openacs.org] by Ben Adida, part of the OpenACS project is must-read.
For the sake of half-completeness: Don't forget that we have another very powerful RDBMS that has quite recently been open-sourced: Interbase [borland.com]
Kakemann
Re:NuSphere clearly violating 15 USC § 1125(d) (Score:5)
There seem to be two parts to their disagreement that are legally pertinent (though IANAL):
1. MySQL claims the only agreement that has existed is the preliminary agreement and that it is no longer in force. NuSphere claims otherwise.
2. MySQL claims that the preliminary agreement didn't grant NuSphere the right to use their trademark in this way, regardless of whether or not it is still in force. NuSphere disagrees.
NuSphere's *not* claiming they have the right to use MySQL's trademark absent any agreement with MySQL. Rather they claim that they've been granted that right, a very different thing.
The courts, not Slashdot, will decide whose interpretation of the preliminary agreement is correct, of course, and whether or not any statements or promises by either side outside of that agreement are binding.
Unless they can find a way to settle out of court, of course...
Re:Why are we bothered by this? (Score:2)
Re: MySQL's scalability (Score:3)
Re:hmm (Score:3)
You're confusing things by bunching together trademarks and copyrights under the obfuscatory category "Intellectual Property":
GNU GPL and the American Way [gnu.org]
Re:NuSphere clearly violating 15 USC § 1125(d) (Score:2)
Is this disputed? They both filed lawsuits already -- what jurisdictions did they use?
Re:NuSphere clearly violating 15 USC § 1125(d) (Score:3)
OK, if this is NuSphere's argument, then they'll bear the burden of proof to substantiate it in the courtroom. Otherwise, this will be an example of "If we agreed you could use it, we wouldn't be suing you."
But your point is well taken -- these are disputed issues of fact as to what was agreed upon. I expect it will take a judge about 3 minutes to read the black letter language of the agreement and determine who is right.
I find it difficult to believe that MySQL would ever agree to let NuSphere use mysql.org . I find it almost impossible to believe that they would have done so and not realized it.
NuSphere clearly violating 15 USC § 1125(d) (Score:4)
Regardless of whatever complaints NuSphere has about getting the stiff arm when trying to submit code, they have unclean hands until they fix their clear trademark violation.
I would like to remind everybody that there were similar accusations of stiff arming associated with the release of Interbase by Borland. The approach taken there was to create the Firebird project by forking. Without trying to endorse NuSphere's complaints, even if they are true, the fork and rename plan is the honorable way to procede when you don't feel the project owner is fair. Until NuSphere fixes their blatent legal violations, their other arguments are just sorry excuses.
Mysql AB skimming over the question (Score:2)
I use and recommend Mysql quite a lot in my work and I think all users have a big stake in it improving specifically with regard to transactions , advanced DB administration, and operation under heavy load. At least the first two seem to be addressed by Nusphere, which I will try out as soon as they provide the source code.
Since Mr. Mickos has made several public announcements about the case, in effect appealing to mysql's users and accusing Nusphere of criminal intent, I'd say he owes it to us to explain what exactly that $300K was for and what Nusphere got out of it. Mysql has neglected that little fact. It sounds almost like they took the money and expected that any guarantees would evaporate the next time the last digit of the version number changes. I doubt Nusphere is ignoring the GPL in a way that is hurting anybody yet.. besides themselves (heard about code review?) It sounds more to me that they are reluctant to give Mysql AB anything else until the responsibilities of both parties are made perfectly clear by a court.
Unfortunately they must be in serious trouble having paid so much money to Mysql for what Mysql seems to think is nothing at all. I thought their site was over the top at first too but now hearing Mickos' responses I'm not sure that Nusphere is so much in the wrong. So what's the real story Mr. Mickos? Mysql has done great work, but TANSTAAFL. You can't selectively disclose facts to maybe the biggest online group of Mysql users and think you will gain good will.
I'd sure like to feel better about Mysql and Nusphere both before I use their software again, as it is I'm waiting for that PostgreSql alpha we've heard about to make it into production servers.
Oh boy... (Score:2)
*sigh*
Re:Why are we bothered by this? (Score:1)
Well, it all does NOW, but what happens when everything settles down? Do you really think that they registered the name to link to mysql.com forever? Even if something is explicitly stated in public doesn't mean they can't legally change it later **cough Unisys** **cough GIF patent**
(for those who don't know, when Unisys got the LZW patent they originally said they wouldn't enforce it for GIF images).
What if the agreement says NuSphere will pay money, but they haven't yet? Then they are both right. Life isn't black and white...
mysql ab sounds pretty reasonable (Score:1)
Cheers,
Chris
emacs.com (Score:1)
mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:1)
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:2)
Re:mySQL.com and mySQL.org...... (Score:2)
Re:Business (Score:1)
Re:Business (Score:1)
"San Jose International Airport officials have denied Larry Ellison's request to exempt his Gulfstream V jet from the airport's curfew. San Jose has a curfew that prohibits large jets from using the airport between 11:30 p.m. and 6:30 a.m."
simple explanation (Score:1)
> the default solution for the open-source
> community
It's easy. Any Linux weenie can get MySQL up and running and performing usefully in no time. None of the more involved aspects of a proper database have to be worried about.
That's why I like it. I don't want to have to worry about default tablespaces and rollback and atomic transactions and row-level locking and stored procedures for my website guestbook. MySQL is one step up from flat files, and that suits most people just fine.
Another thing of course is that newbies and over-zealous linux advocates will praise an open source product to high heaven with even the slightest encouragement. Don't know anything about databases but know MySQL powers
Re:Business (Score:1)
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
Perhaps a Settlement instead of the Courts? (Score:2)
In this way, the issue is set aside so as to not widen the rifts between the companies and to keep the MySQL community together. Further, NuSphere has an opportunity to "re-affirm" its committment to the MySQL community and MySQL AB retains most of its rights.
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
While the APIs may be LGPL'd, in the case where you have developed an application which requires MySQL for operation, then you must either license your application under the GPL or apply for a commerical license [mysql.com] see the policy [mysql.com] page which spell this out.
I wonder what obscure.org thinks? (Score:2)
Re:Business? (Score:1)
What could they POSSIBLY want that for ? Maybe to develop a list of people they could target for NuSphere support contracts/sales ?
NuSphere advertising on perl.com (Score:2)
Sponsored By: NuSphere MySQL
NuSphere MySQL Advantage gives MySQL the power to handle transaction-intensive enterprise applications. With a pre-configured Perl DBI for MySQL, NuSphere MySQL Advantage gives you the power to build cost-effective solutions.
Not sure whether this is good, bad, or indifferent.
Re:MySQL AB is Absolutely Right! (Score:1)
Intellectual Property Rights (Score:1)
Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside?
Re:Let this be a lesson to you... (Score:1)
While other things you say are completely true, and sound like a good advice, in Open Source / Free s/w world... well, think again about letting lawyers send your message. It's a slap in your audience's/customers face to have to deal with legalese, carefully hidden double-talk and vague implications. In PR, lawyers should assist, but not lead.
Re:Let this be a lesson to you... (Score:1)
And it might be professional not to comment on the process while it's going... But then again, I feel OS people are more sensitive to moral/ideological issues behind the fights, and that you may need to issue some non-legalese statements to "your friends" too. I am sure glad I don't have to deal with these kinds of situatuons though.
Re:Seems to me... (Score:2)
Now, if you have created a GPL'ed product, and someone:
what should you do? Just turn your other cheek? I don't like lawsuits, esp. between open source - based companies, but in this case facts seem to be in favour of MySQL AB. It's nice to "just get along", except if you are being taken unfair advantage of, like in this case.
What is really unfortunate, though, is that it doesn't seem far-fetched to wish things had developed differently. Especialy I\if Gemini is as good a product as some say. But still, that doesn't justify assholish actions.
Explaining to you (Score:1)
Postgres offers great stability; and numerous features that MySQL simply doesn't offer - most notable being transactions.
Postgres scales real nicely, and while it once was slow and didn't handle large records well, both of these have been very well addressed in the most recent versions. A recent article at phpbuilder [phpbuilder.com] demonstrates quite nicely these issues. (current release is 7.2)
I use it, I love it! Why do people use that so-limiting MySQL, anyway?
-Ben
Re:Please explain to me (Score:1)
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
I smell collusion. (Score:1)
1) Informs people that there are 2 companies that distribute MySQL (NuSphere and MySQL AB).
2) Increases visibility of MySQL.
3) Establishes the pro-facta site for the creator of MySQL... mysql.com
I estimate that NuSphere will give MySQL AB the
---
Let this be a lesson to you... (Score:3)
splintering of OSS vendors/developers (Score:2)
Back then Mundie first started his attack - on Microsoft's behalf - he provided a great service to the OSS comunity by creating a cohesive force by providing a common enemy. Now we're beginning to see the in-fighting we saw before Mundie attacked OSS in his series of ill-thought out speaches.
It's a shame that the OSS comunity can't remain more united even in the aftermath... Oh, well
--CTH
--
Re:Can't we ALL (Score:2)
Whoops (Score:2)
* Removed all documentation referring to the GEMINI table type. GEMINI is not released under an Open Source license.
Not that I disagree with them doing this since the table isn't open source... but this fight seems to be getting nasty!
Business (Score:2)
Re:Please explain to me (Score:2)
MySQL isn't, by any stretch of the term, RDMBS.
It's a glorified SQL-quiryable-FS.
As such, it has some *really* nice features that I wish would make their way into other DB, but that doesn't make MySQL into a real RDMBS.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Re:Oh boy... (Score:3)
It's going to show that it's important enough to be fought over.
--
Two witches watched two watches.
Re:hmm (Score:3)
There is more at stake to "IP rights" than ownership of ideas. In the case of trademark, it becomes ownership of your reputation. Your name is a proxy for who you are and what you stand for. That right transcends the ownership of code or ideas. You therefore would probably not want to condone use of your name in manners which wrongly associate you with things with which you have not chosen to associate. This is why things such as credit card fraud, libel, and slander are illegal. I don't think there is anyone arguing for legalization of these things -- at least, no-one in a position to be defrauded, libeled, or slandered.
One of the tricky angles about trademarks is that if you knowingly allow other people to use them out of context (e.g., naming their products or services with your trademark), your trademark can be stripped due to dilution. As such, it is essential that anyone wishing to keep trademarks protect them, even by giving a blanket license to those using them in order to allow them to continue to use them. Or, the trademark holder might not want to license, but that's their prerogative.
Would it?
The GPL gives license to the code, not the name. Even if the BSD license were used, the only difference in this case would be that NuSphere MySQL Advantage would be a legally closed-source product violating MySQL AB's trademark, as opposed to an illegally closed-source product violating MYSQL AB's trademark as it is today.
At least with the GPL, we have the possibility of opening up the source of this new product. This is the least that Monty deserves for indirectly having donated his time to the NuSphere project, without which NuSphere MySQL Advantage would not exist.
Weren't you already doing this? (Score:2)
Gee, from the kind of response time that I get when I load up Slashdot, my impression was that you have been doing this all along.
Time to give it back (Score:5)
mySQL.org is dedicated to the promotion and improvement of the fast, free, and flexible MySQL database. We provide the Open Source community a center for free downloads, information and communication, as well as all the files you need to build applications based on MySQL, the #1 open source database.
mySQL.org is a free service to the Open Source development community. You may browse our site freely, but become a member so that we can keep you posted on new site initiatives. mySQL.org offers easy access to the best binaries and source available to database programmers.
We are looking for talented individuals to contribute to the community. For those willing to help maintain the code, documentation, or support resources, please email support@mysql.org.
They have their little spat [mysql.com] with MySQL AB, and want to steal control of the software as payback. It reeks of opportunism. MySQL AB is doing an excellent job on their database and they don't need NuSphere stealing their work and trying to take credit for it. NuSphere can develop its derivative products just fine without trying to take the open source mysql away from its authors.
--The Shortcut
OBSCURE.ORG is not involved (Score:2)
Thanks for the comment. We have changed the header of our press announcement to say "obscure mysql.org site" in order to avoid confusion, and we have sent an apology to the obscure.org site, who where kind enough to inform us of the unfortunate wording.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
P.S. And talking about "obscure", we are happy to note that mysql.org is no longer obscure. After our announcement NuSphere has changed the frontpage to properly identify them having launched the site. If they now renamed it "nusphere.org" or something else, we would come another step forward.
Re:Mysql AB responding to the question (Score:2)
First I have to state that we do NOT on Slashdot "accuse NuSphere of criminal intent".
Regarding the money, please see http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html and the question "Did NuSphere pay MySQL AB $2.5 million?".
On 21 June 2000, Progress and MySQL AB entered into an interim agreement. Under the interim agreement, MySQL AB agreed to allow Progress to participate in the announcement that the MySQL server would be released under the GPL License. Specifically, the interim agreement provides that on the day of this announcement, Progress would make a first payment to MySQL AB and would announce this as the first of a series of total anticipated payments up to $2.5 million. Progress agreed to continue making these payments at the level of $104,167 through at least August, 2000. Thereafter, payments by Progress and other arrangements, such as further arrangements concerning MySQL AB's control of the quality of goods and services promoted by Progress by means of the MySQL (tm) mark, were to be governed by a further, final agreement between the parties. Under the interim agreement, Progress was allowed certain use of the trademark, to sell and distribute MySQL under the GPL license and to sell hardcopy printed MySQL documentation.
Some people have asked us what we need "all that money" for. We have about 30 staff on fixed monthly salary who work full-time on developing the software and our services in different locations in the world. Once or twice a year we bring all our people to one location for a staff meeting. We avoid costly office premises and advertising. The company has so far been profitable, and the profits have been reinvested into the company.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Re:Embarrassing (Score:3)
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Re:MySQL AB is Absolutely Right! (Score:3)
Now the interim agreement is no longer in force, but that fact is unrelated to the GPL violation issue.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
MySQL did NOT reject Gemini, did NOT ask for (c) (Score:5)
We have not rejected Gemini from our source tree, and we have not asked them to sign over any copyright. InnoDB and BDB are other examples of third-party transaction handlers for the MySQL server.
In stead, we suggested to NuSphere a cross-licensing agreement whereby they could sell commercial licences of MySQL with Gemini and we could do the same.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB
Re:Why are we bothered by this? (Score:5)
NuSphere has fixed this issue after our announcement, and that is good.
- Michael Widenius from MySQL AB claims "I want to stress that to date, NuSphere has contributed nothing, no money or source, to the development of the MySQL(tm) server." See the original statement here. This is a direct contradition to NuSphere's claims
A clarification: NuSphere HAS paid MySQL AB money last year for being part of the GPL announcement and for other rights, but it was not a contribution to the development of the MySQL server. The agreement under which they paid is now terminated. Our FAQ at http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html has more details.
- While I'd initially side with the MySQL AB folks, their press release is rediculous, as is their followup. This is not life and death, if they think NuSphere is violating the GPL they should have the FSF sue, or sue themselves and set a good precedent.
We have sued NuSphere for GPL violation.
- the software provided is under the GPL, a good thing
A great thing!
- Nusphere doesn't want to sign copyright over to mysql when that would mean mysql could then sell closed source versions for closed source products. That's their right, who cares it's all open sourced.
We have NEVER asked them to sign over copyright to us. We have in stead suggested cross-licensing whereby they can sell the MySQL server with Gemini commercially, and we can do it as well. Win-win.
- So before jumping around like chickens based an another overhyped press release, be it a corporation complaining about theft, or MySQL AB claiming all kinds of pretty serious stuff, let's let it simmer for a few weeks and then get involved.
Yep, we are handling the issue and trying to find a resolution. We also want to be open about it so that the community knows what is happening.
-Marten Mickos, MySQL AB