Thread: Will Open Source be forced to go Proprietary
Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows. PostgreSQL is one of the projects mentioned. http://www.enterprise-linux-it.com/story.xhtml?story_title=Will_Open_Source_Be_Forced_To_Go_Proprietary_&story_id=22843 -- Rod Taylor <rbt [at] rbt [dot] ca> Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL PGP Key: http://www.rbt.ca/rbtpub.asc
Attachment
Rod Taylor wrote: > Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows. [link] This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money). The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure the author really understands the software "industry". One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with "open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary" without being "closed". It seems to me that someone was writing for a deadline, not an audience. However, one single grain of truth emerged: "Most people don't care about helping out Windows". Why would we? We already support the stable and trustworthy computing platforms. Regards Alex Satrapa
Alex Satrapa wrote: > Rod Taylor wrote: > > Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows. > [link] > > This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money). > > The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go > proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure > the author really understands the software "industry". > > One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with > "open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new > range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for > implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary" > without being "closed". > As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via patents. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Thu, 8 Jan 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Alex Satrapa wrote: > > Rod Taylor wrote: > > > Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows. > > [link] > > > > This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money). > > > > The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go > > proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure > > the author really understands the software "industry". > > > > One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with > > "open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new > > range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for > > implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary" > > without being "closed". > > > > As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to > their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via > patents. Will it be as enforceable as I imagine the MSN Messenger protocol and/or Yahoo and/or ... is? Oh, wait, maybe MySQL is going to team up with SCO as a way of encouraging market share? *evil grin* ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
In an attempt to throw the authorities off his trail, pgman@candle.pha.pa.us (Bruce Momjian) transmitted: > Alex Satrapa wrote: >> Rod Taylor wrote: >> > Discussion about OpenSource projects moving to support Windows. >> [link] >> >> This article was WOFTAM (Waste of Time And Money). >> >> The article asks if open source projects will be "forced to go >> proprietary" without describing what "proprietary" means. I'm not sure >> the author really understands the software "industry". >> >> One of the telling comments is that the author confuses "published" with >> "open" - Microsoft has indeed "published" the XML schema for it's new >> range of Microsoft Office products, but the patent it has applied for >> implies that the schema is not "open". Software can be "proprietary" >> without being "closed". > > As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to > their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via > patents. _VIA PATENTS_!?!??!? [Chris says, with an incredulous look...] Are they _totally_ suicidal? That's doubtless a wonderful route if their plan is to get MySQL removed from "open source" collections, and to get a bunch of Slashdot "script kiddies" to start pulling SCO-like DOS attacks on their web sites. If they decide to define that as "success," they can doubtless attain 'success' beyond their wildest dreams... -- let name="aa454" and tld="freenet.carleton.ca" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://cbbrowne.com/info/linux.html No lusers were harmed in the creation of this usenet article. AND I WANT TO KNOW WHY NOT! -- glmar0@twirl.mcc.ac.uk in alt.sysadmin.recovery
Uhhh perhaps we should verify this first?As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via patents.
J
_VIA PATENTS_!?!??!? [Chris says, with an incredulous look...] Are they _totally_ suicidal? That's doubtless a wonderful route if their plan is to get MySQL removed from "open source" collections, and to get a bunch of Slashdot "script kiddies" to start pulling SCO-like DOS attacks on their web sites. If they decide to define that as "success," they can doubtless attain 'success' beyond their wildest dreams...
-- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >>As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to
> >>their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via
> >>patents.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> Uhhh perhaps we should verify this first?
I think this does:
http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html
It includes an analysis from PHP's Sterling saying that MySQL
interpretation that anything that "depends" on MySQL prevents such a
client, and quotes from MySQL's CEO.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > > > > > > > >>As is MySQL. They say you can't produce a non-GPL client that talks to > > >>their server via the protocol. They say they will enforce this via > > >>patents. > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > > > Uhhh perhaps we should verify this first? > > I think this does: > > http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html > > It includes an analysis from PHP's Sterling saying that MySQL > interpretation that anything that "depends" on MySQL prevents such a > client, and quotes from MySQL's CEO. We have a new motto for the GPL. "A litigious license for litigious people." ;-) Sorry, but I think MySQL's interpretation of the GPL is unenforceable. As long as I don't distribute MySQL or their lib codes, I owe them nothing. So, I can now reverse engineer their client libs. Since I'm not distributing MySQL, I still owe them nothing. A user installs MySQL for free under the GPL, they buy my product, everything works. The fact that my product, in fact, "depends" on their GPL software means nothing, as I did not distribute it. I can now charge a gazillion dollars and not show anyone a single line of code. At the same time, distribution makers are nervous about including MySQL, especially the BSDs, because it appears they are trying to "poison the well". It's a lose - lose situation for MySQL.
>I think this does: > > http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html > >It includes an analysis from PHP's Sterling saying that MySQL >interpretation that anything that "depends" on MySQL prevents such a >client, and quotes from MySQL's CEO. > > > I see no where, where MySQL states that they will use Patents to enforce their licenses. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
Joshua D. Drake wrote: > > >I think this does: > > > > http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html > > > >It includes an analysis from PHP's Sterling saying that MySQL > >interpretation that anything that "depends" on MySQL prevents such a > >client, and quotes from MySQL's CEO. > > > > > > > > I see no where, where MySQL states that they will use Patents to enforce > their licenses. Sorry, someone had told me patents, but it is actually copyright because the GPL uses copyright law. They are saying anything that talks to GPL software has to be GPL, and that includes a reverse-engineered client library. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
| Sorry, someone had told me patents, but it is actually copyright because >the GPL uses copyright law. They are saying anything that talks to GPL >software has to be GPL, and that includes a reverse-engineered client >library. > > > Yes I did see that. Actually from what I know of the GPL, this could very well be the case. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com Mammoth PostgreSQL Replicator. Integrated Replication for PostgreSQL
----- Original Message ----- From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> > Yes I did see that. Actually from what I know of the GPL, this could very > well be the case. > The GPL specifically allows non-Free/Open Source components to talk to GPL'd applications via pipes and sockets. I am assuming here that network sockets are included, so there is NO copyright reason that, were the protocol reverse engineered that a third-party mysql driver couldn't be written. Of course, you could NOT use the MySQL source to do it. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Chris Travers wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
> > Yes I did see that. Actually from what I know of the GPL, this could very
> > well be the case.
> >
> The GPL specifically allows non-Free/Open Source components to talk to GPL'd
> applications via pipes and sockets. I am assuming here that network sockets
> are included, so there is NO copyright reason that, were the protocol
> reverse engineered that a third-party mysql driver couldn't be written. Of
> course, you could NOT use the MySQL source to do it.
But the MySQL description says:
http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html
Under the Open Source License, you must release the complete source code
for the application that is built on MySQL.
What does that mean, "built on MySQL". I think that means "depends" on
MySQL. At least I have heard that description:
http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_License.html
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073
The world rejoiced as chris@travelamericas.com ("Chris Travers") wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>
>> Yes I did see that. Actually from what I know of the GPL, this could very
>> well be the case.
>
> The GPL specifically allows non-Free/Open Source components to talk
> to GPL'd applications via pipes and sockets. I am assuming here
> that network sockets are included, so there is NO copyright reason
> that, were the protocol reverse engineered that a third-party mysql
> driver couldn't be written. Of course, you could NOT use the MySQL
> source to do it.
The problem here is not particularly with the GPL; your reading of the
GPL appears consistent with _other_ interpretations of it.
The two things about MySQL are that:
a) Its owners seem to have an interestingly aggressive interpretation
of how the license that they chose applies to their software;
b) Its owners have given indication that they are prepared to take
legal action against "open source" developers that disagree with
their interpretation of the license they have chosen.
The latter is what gives people pause. The company presumably has a
few million dollars of their venture capital left, and therefore can
afford more lawyers than most of the rest of us can.
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/postgresql.html
Did you hear about the dyslexic agnostic insomniac who stays up all
night wondering if there really is a Dog?
On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Christopher Browne wrote: > The latter is what gives people pause. The company presumably has a > few million dollars of their venture capital left, and therefore can > afford more lawyers than most of the rest of us can. So, basically, they have to hope they don't run out of that money before they lose their market share to us and/or firebird? :) ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
>So, basically, they have to hope they don't run out of that money before >they lose their market share to us and/or firebird? :) > > My predication is that mySQL proper will be dropped from the world in the next 36 months and all of their efforts will focus on SapDB (MaxDB). They know mySQL isn't and really can't be within its current infrastructure what they sell it to be... However, SapDB can be, which is why they are creating all these compatibility connection layers and such so existing apps will need very little modification during initial migration. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake >---- >Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) >Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664 > >---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend > > -- Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting. +1-503-667-4564 - jd@commandprompt.com - http://www.commandprompt.com PostgreSQL Replicator -- production quality replication for PostgreSQL
Oops! scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") was seen spray-painting on a wall:
> On Fri, 9 Jan 2004, Christopher Browne wrote:
>> The latter is what gives people pause. The company presumably has
>> a few million dollars of their venture capital left, and therefore
>> can afford more lawyers than most of the rest of us can.
>
> So, basically, they have to hope they don't run out of that money
> before they lose their market share to us and/or firebird? :)
They are quite clearly pushing deals with large companies, which
allows collecting fairly large sums of licensing fees from single
points of contact.
"MySQL AB ... has recently signed commercial licensing agreements
with Active Voice, Avery Dennison, Caterpillar Inc., NEC America,
Sabre Holdings"
<http://www.mysql.com/press/release_2003_34.html>
I find that last company entirely surprising; Sabre Holdings has long
had LARGE numbers of Oracle and DB/2 licenses kicking around; even
some Sybase and Teradata. It seems _really_ curious that they would
pick MySQL for some of their online systems when there's a _strong_
tradition of considering Unix to be a not-reliable-for-vital-systems
"Johnny-come-lately" operating system. (You put the _important_ stuff
on DB/2 or IMS on a mainframe...)
In a manner of speaking, PostgreSQL doesn't _have_ "market share,"
since it usually isn't "sold." A hundred thousand deployments at a
pricetag of $0 is a lot _less_ "market share" than 100 deployments at
$1500/license, as the former is worth "nothing" when the latter is
worth $150K. _Infinitely_ more "market share."
If the company is suitably aggressive in pursuing opportunities to
collect licensing fees, they may _not_ so quickly run out of money.
And it is entirely clear that this is something they are doing.
And look at what they're doing with MaxDB; they inherit "legacy"
customers, and and look to be charging quite Oracle-like pricing on
it.
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','acm.org').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #178. "If I have the hero cornered and am
about to finish him off and he says "Look out behind you!!" I will not
laugh and say "You don't expect me to fall for that old trick, do
you?" Instead I will take a step to the side and half turn. That way I
can still keep my weapon trained on the hero, I can scan the area
behind me, and if anything was heading for me it will now be heading
for him." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
To try to keep this marginally on topic-- MySQL is a good example of "proprietary open source" as we have been discussing and their business model demands that. That is fine for them for now, but maybe this is not so good in the future. I think that the open source model and proprietary models do not mix well. Ok, I have been unable to find what I was looking for in the GPL. However, I did find the following language interesting: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Seems to undercut MySQL's claim regarding distribution of a proprietary app which depends on MySQL. IANAL, but I understand that the definition of derivative works varies from juristiction to juristiction, and that only a few circuits in the US even have a clear test. IMHO, this leaves MySQL with a SCO-like dilemma-- sue or not to sue in cases where there is disagreement about the nature of the license. (BTW< the Nusphere case was far more clear cut than the hypotheticals I am discussing now). If I distribute MySQL on the same media as a web service that exposes the MySQL lib interfaces, and a proprietary web client which uses those interfaces, then MySQL could either sue me and risk their marketing platform if the court finds against them or they could refrain from suing me and just badger me about licenses. This is a lose-lose situation for MySQL because the lack of clarity creates a problem regarding their business model (licensing) which is not good. Also, the "depends on" test might be a bad idea for another reason-- if held up in court, any software written exclusively for MS Windows would therefore be a derivative work and subject to royalties from Microsoft! IANAL, but I have a HARD time believing that such a decision . The only approach I can see them taking is that of direct linking, which is similar to the approach of the FSF. I don't think that targetting MySQL as a development platform consitutes a derivative work, but linking might. Furthermore a bridge might be allowed because a wrapper library would have to be licensed under the GPL, but the library itself (and header) would still be copyrighted by the author who could use it in a proprietary app. In juristictions where there is no defined test regaring derivative works, both the developer and MySQL AB could be at risk. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Bruce Momjian wrote: > > But the MySQL description says: > > http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html > > Under the Open Source License, you must release the complete source code > for the application that is built on MySQL. > > What does that mean, "built on MySQL". I think that means "depends" on > MySQL. At least I have heard that description: > > http://www.edwardbear.org/serendipity/archives/1193_My_Beef_with_MySQLs_Lice nse.html That is a very strange definition of derivative work. What makes MySQL different in this regard than, say, Windows? If a database is primarily a platform for development, and this test were to be held up wouldn't that make a wide variety of applications derivative works of MS Windows? Quickbooks come to mind. IMO (and IANAL), this is one of the real problems with the GPL. Due to the lack of guidance from the courts, developers can say who they will or won't sue regarding derivative works, but there is prescious little one can say about the outcome in advance except in the most clear cut cases. There was an article on Groklaw recently regarding a legal overview of open source, and derivative words were discussed. The reason why I think that this is relavent is that it means that MySQL is not really 'open' in the way that the Linux kernel or PostgreSQL is-- namely that it uses the GPL to deliberately break accessibility to proprietary applications which everyone else considers to be separate works. This leads a MySQL developer into a bad situation where they are forced to choose between litigation or licensing (even if they are within their legal rights, IMO). This seems to be a point we could make. Maybe a paper on the advocacy site: What you should know about MySQL. Best WIshes, CHris Travers
To try to keep this marginally on topic-- MySQL is a good example of "proprietary open source" as we have been discussing and their business model demands that. That is fine for them for now, but maybe this is not so good in the future. I think that the open source model and proprietary models do not mix well. Ok, I have been unable to find what I was looking for in the GPL. However, I did find the following language interesting: "These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it." Seems to undercut MySQL's claim regarding distribution of a proprietary app which depends on MySQL. IANAL, but I understand that the definition of derivative works varies from juristiction to juristiction, and that only a few circuits in the US even have a clear test. IMHO, this leaves MySQL with a SCO-like dilemma-- sue or not to sue in cases where there is disagreement about the nature of the license. (BTW< the Nusphere case was far more clear cut than the hypotheticals I am discussing now). If I distribute MySQL on the same media as a web service that exposes the MySQL lib interfaces, and a proprietary web client which uses those interfaces, then MySQL could either sue me and risk their marketing platform if the court finds against them or they could refrain from suing me and just badger me about licenses. This is a lose-lose situation for MySQL because the lack of clarity creates a problem regarding their business model (licensing) which is not good. Also, the "depends on" test might be a bad idea for another reason-- if held up in court, any software written exclusively for MS Windows would therefore be a derivative work and subject to royalties from Microsoft! IANAL, but I have a HARD time believing that such a precedent would be established. The only approach I can see them taking is that of direct linking, which is similar to the approach of the FSF. I don't think that targetting MySQL as a development platform consitutes a derivative work, but linking might. Furthermore a bridge might be allowed because a wrapper library would have to be licensed under the GPL, but the library itself (and header) would still be copyrighted by the author who could use it in a proprietary app. If course, in circuits with no clear test of derivative works, I could imagine courts ruling either way, so one is never safe, but MySQL isn't either. PostgreSQL licensing avoides these problems by using the BSD license which permits derivative works nearly without limitation. Is there anybody out there interested in putting together some competitive material regarding MySQL with regard to licensing and consistancy issues as well as different features? Best WIshes, Chris Travers
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 > However, one single grain of truth emerged: "Most people don't > care about helping out Windows". Why would we? We already > support the stable and trustworthy computing platform Because the lack of a Windows port can hamper PostgreSQL's non-Windows adoption. The lists are full of ancecdotes by people in mixed-OS shops who have been making this point for years. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200401111434 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFAAaVlvJuQZxSWSsgRAt0VAJ9c6EaeBt7wWoQkEdwLNBJVZD8x8gCgm/su 9eGd7vzLKNg8DLUNdH0ZxEs= =kkXS -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----