Re: MySQL Gemini code - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Michael Widenius |
---|---|
Subject | Re: MySQL Gemini code |
Date | |
Msg-id | 15190.23889.481705.676562@narttu.mysql.fi Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: MySQL Gemini code (Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
Hi! >>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com> writes: Jan> Moin Monty, Jan> dear fence-guests, Thanks. >> Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright >> of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is >> actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For >> example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications) does >> the same thing. Assigning over the code is also something that FSF >> requires for all code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB, >> you should also criticize the above. Jan> I should not criticize the others and Trond already explained Jan> why (thank you). Jan> All I was doing was summing up some of the latest press Jan> releases from NuSphere and MySQL AB. You as CTO and your own Jan> CEO have explained detailed enough why the assignment of Jan> copyright for all core system related code is so important Jan> for your company because of your business modell. As the Jan> original banker I am, and as the 13+ year IT consultant I am, Jan> I don't have the slightest problem with that and understand Jan> it completely. It's not my business at all anyway, so it Jan> doesn't matter if I personally think it's good or not. Jan> But NuSphere said, that the problem with contributing the Jan> Gemini code was because of the copyright questions. Looking Jan> at the code now and realizing that it's part of the Progress Jan> storage system fits perfectly. NuSphere might have had Jan> permission from Progress to release it under the GPL, but not Jan> to assign the copyright to MySQL AB. The copyright of parts Jan> of the Gemini code is still property of Progress (Britt Jan> please come down from the fence and correct me if I'm wrong Jan> here). We have never asked for the copyright to Gemini; We don't need the copyright to do an embedded version of MySQL, as MySQL works perfectly without Gemini; We have an agreement with Innobase Oy and an understanding with Sleepycat so we can provide ACID transactions even without Gemini, if any of our commercial customers would require this. (Sorry for the 'business talk', but I just wanted to fill in the background) In my opinion the whole thing with the copyright is a public stunt of NuSphere to explain why they are now doing a fork. I don't have any problems with a fork as long as they don't call it MySQL and don't do it on a site called mysql.org. >> I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL >> regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least >> understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for >> PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for >> the main developers to PostgreSQL. Anyway, I think that we open source >> developers should stick together. We may have our own disagreements, >> but at least we are working for the same common goal (open source >> domination). Jan> The RedHAT database IS PostgreSQL. And I don't see it Jan> becoming something different. All I've seen up to now is that Jan> RedHAT will be a contributing member of the PostgreSQL open Jan> source community in the same way, PostgreSQL Inc. and Great Jan> Bridge LLC are. That they use BIG RED letters while GB uses Jan> BIG BLUE ones and PgSQL Inc. a bavarian mix for the Jan> marketing, yeah - that's marketing - these folks like logos Jan> and colors. The real difference will mature somehow in the Jan> service portfolios over time. And since there are many Jan> different customers with a broad variety of demands, we'll Jan> all find more food than we can eat. No need to fight against Jan> each other. Sound's good. I really hope it will be that way in the long run! On the other hand, in the beginning our deal with NuSphere also appeared to be good:( Jan> The major advantage in the PostgreSQL case is, that we don't Jan> need no dispute about licensing, because whoever thinks he Jan> can make a deal out of keeping something proprietary is Jan> allowed to. People contributing under the BSD license are Jan> just self-confident enough to know that this will become a Jan> niche solution or die anyway. Yes, in your case the BSD license is a good license. For us at MySQL AB, that have paid staff doing all most all development work on the server, the GPL license is a better license as this allows to put all software we develop under open source and still make a living. (I am not trying to start a flame war here; I am just saying that both licenses have their use and both benefit open source, but in different ways) Jan> And there we are at the point about "support regarding THIS". Jan> If you're asking for support for the MySQL project, well, I Jan> created two procedural languages in PostgreSQL so far and Jan> know enough about the query rewriting techniques used by Jan> Stonebraker and his team to implement views in PostgreSQL. Jan> As the open source developer I am, I might possibly find one Jan> or the other spare hour to create something similar. The Jan> reason I did it for PostgreSQL was because a couple of years Jan> ago Bruce Momjian asked me to fix the rule system. Noone ever Jan> asked me to do anything for MySQL. But if you're asking for Jan> direct support for your company, sorry, but I'm a Great Jan> Bridge employee and that's clearly against my interests. The only thing I ask for support is against mysql.org, as this clearly violates our trademark, and public support against any company that breaks copyrights or open source licenses. I don't think that this would be a problem for anyone that believes in open source, independent of who they work for. Jan> But maybe Mr. Mickos told the truth, that there never have Jan> been substantial contributions from the outside and nearly Jan> all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little Jan> "donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's launch of Jan> mysql.org was long overdue. >> >> Why do you think that? >> >> MySQL AB is a totally open source company. Everything we develop and >> sell we also put on open source. I think we have are doing and have >> always done the right thing for the open source community. Jan> That is what your CEO said on NewsForge, SlashDot and Jan> whereever. I am committed to free source. Thus I think that Jan> the best thing for open source is a free community, which and Jan> who's product is not controlled by any commercial entity. I am also committed to open source even if my standpoint is a little different from yours. Anyone can do a fork of MySQL, if they don't think that we are doing the right thing. I don't have a problem with that (I wouldn't like it, but it's a rule of the game). I am however against people that are using others trademark or copyrighted stuff without permission. >> I don't think it's really fair to be compare us to NuSphere :( Jan> Did I? That wasn't my intention. And nothing I wrote was Jan> meant personally. Even if the PostgreSQL and MySQL projects Jan> had some differences in the past, there has never been Jan> something between Monty and Jan (not to my knowledge). That's right. Sorry for being a little 'on the edge', but this NuSphere business is taking it's tool. Jan> Let's meet next week at O'Reilly (you're there, aren't you) Jan> and have a beer. I will not be there, but you will find my partner David there. I am sure he also would like to meet and chat with you for a while. I will try to keep down my postings on this list now (if not something REALLY interesting comes up). I just wanted you to give you a quick look from the other side of the fence. Regards, Monty
pgsql-hackers by date: