On Thursday 25 September 2003 04:08, Christopher Browne wrote:
[snip]
> He also wrote something that seems really quite remarkable:
>
> "The only ones suffering from MySQL's licensing policy are the ones
> who try to exploit open source for their own benefit without giving
> anything back to the community."
That's the one that got my attention too. I must admit that although I've
never spent a penny on PG or related merchandise I do believe I've
contributed in my own small way. I must have answered over 1000 queries in
the last couple of years, hopefully helping several hundred people. My
PostgreSQL Notes were getting over a thousand hits a week at their peak -
presumably they were of benefit to _someone_.
> That might be true specifically for MySQL, based on some fairly
> peculiar understanding of the word "community." (Presumably one where
> the "community" is more precisely characterized as "the owners and
> employees of MySQL AB.")
Well, to be charitable if you view the key point of open source as being,
well, the source code they have a point. BSD code can end up pretty much
anywhere without any repercussions. If they had kept the GPL on the database
but stuck to the LGPL on the client libraries no-one would bat an eyelid.
It's the fact that merely _using_ MySQL now makes you conform to the GPL that
raises any questions.
[snip]
>
> But apparently this must be an area where MySQL has some peculiar
> burdens to bear, such that people that aren't paying money to MySQL AB
> are not "giving anything back to the community." Other open source
> projects don't see things that way.
My take on this is it's all about ownership. With MySQL and Qt there are the
owners and the users, and not a lot of overlap. With PG, it's all a lot more
fuzzy. The SAP-DB mailing-list archives are a good illustration of the
difference - when the "transfer" to MySQL happened there were a lot of people
who suddenly realised exactly where they stood.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
