Thread: Oracle buying Sleepycat, JBoss, and Zend???
On Friday 10 February 2006 09:53, Ned Lilly wrote: > Holy moly: > > www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060209_810527.htm if nothing else it means that oracle is forcing the postgresql community to close ranks more than ever before.
Ned Lilly wrote: > Holy moly: > > http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/feb2006/tc20060209_810527.htm It is interesting that they are purchasing companies that almost fully control the software but give it away free as open source: Sleepycat, JBoss, and Zend. Oracle's purchase months ago of InnoDB used by MySQL was a similar move. What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in revenue. -- 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
Bruce, On 2/10/06 8:27 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community > controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how > a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in > revenue. True. I think it's clear they're going after applications again - buying many proven foundational elements of a software development stack in one gulp. What I wonder is what their next step might be - did they do this (and InnoDB) to remove competition? Or do they expect to somehow monetize a new stack? Is Oracle trying to become an open source company? - Luke
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41, Luke Lonergan wrote:
> Bruce,
>
> On 2/10/06 8:27 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:
>
> > What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community
> > controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how
> > a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in
> > revenue.
>
> True.
Or tight control resulting in killing the competition. Even with the
death of great bridge, postgresql kept on going, and I'd say there is no
company currently that has as much sway as great bridge did "way back
when"
>
> I think it's clear they're going after applications again - buying many
> proven foundational elements of a software development stack in one gulp.
> What I wonder is what their next step might be - did they do this (and
> InnoDB) to remove competition? Or do they expect to somehow monetize a new
> stack?
>
My opinion is it's all about eliminating competition. InnoDB and JBoss
don't give them code that is substantially different in a market effect
sense, and sleepycat has only marginal value in the embedded space
compared to the $$ oracle gets in the enterprise rdbms market. However
killing JBoss would kill a competitor, and getting sleepycat puts an
even tighter grip on mysql. Of course I haven't figured out where
PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less
ubiquitous.
> Is Oracle trying to become an open source company?
>
At best they are trying to become a services company like IBM, but I
still think they are just trying to slow down competition.
Robert Treat
--
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
Robert Treat wrote:
<Of course I haven't figured out where PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less ubiquitous. >
Just a guess - but it may be related to IBM's Open Ajax initiative.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1917665,00.asp
Presumably, web-apps are a big part of Oracle's future plans. If they own the better-known power tools, they'll be better able to control the web app "construction process" and help hatch more Salesforce dot com's, which I believe use Oracle.
Next salvo could come from Adobe/Macromedia. They'll need to enter the fray soon.
I think there is PG lemonade to be made from the lemons.
<Of course I haven't figured out where PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less ubiquitous. >
Just a guess - but it may be related to IBM's Open Ajax initiative.
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1917665,00.asp
Presumably, web-apps are a big part of Oracle's future plans. If they own the better-known power tools, they'll be better able to control the web app "construction process" and help hatch more Salesforce dot com's, which I believe use Oracle.
Next salvo could come from Adobe/Macromedia. They'll need to enter the fray soon.
I think there is PG lemonade to be made from the lemons.
On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41, Luke Lonergan wrote:Bruce, On 2/10/06 8:27 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote:What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in revenue.True.Or tight control resulting in killing the competition. Even with the death of great bridge, postgresql kept on going, and I'd say there is no company currently that has as much sway as great bridge did "way back when"I think it's clear they're going after applications again - buying many proven foundational elements of a software development stack in one gulp. What I wonder is what their next step might be - did they do this (and InnoDB) to remove competition? Or do they expect to somehow monetize a new stack?My opinion is it's all about eliminating competition. InnoDB and JBoss don't give them code that is substantially different in a market effect sense, and sleepycat has only marginal value in the embedded space compared to the $$ oracle gets in the enterprise rdbms market. However killing JBoss would kill a competitor, and getting sleepycat puts an even tighter grip on mysql. Of course I haven't figured out where PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less ubiquitous.Is Oracle trying to become an open source company?At best they are trying to become a services company like IBM, but I still think they are just trying to slow down competition. Robert Treat
Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source databases? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mike Ellsworth wrote: > Robert Treat wrote: > > <Of course I haven't figured out where PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe > to help make php/mysql less ubiquitous. > > > Just a guess - but it may be related to IBM's Open Ajax initiative. > http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1917665,00.asp > > Presumably, web-apps are a big part of Oracle's future plans. If they > own the better-known power tools, they'll be better able to control the > web app "construction process" and help hatch more Salesforce dot com's, > which I believe use Oracle. > > Next salvo could come from Adobe/Macromedia. They'll need to enter the > fray soon. > > I think there is PG lemonade to be made from the lemons. > > > > > >On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41, Luke Lonergan wrote: > > > > > >>Bruce, > >> > >>On 2/10/06 8:27 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: > >> > >> > >> > >>>What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community > >>>controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how > >>>a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in > >>>revenue. > >>> > >>> > >>True. > >> > >> > > > >Or tight control resulting in killing the competition. Even with the > >death of great bridge, postgresql kept on going, and I'd say there is no > >company currently that has as much sway as great bridge did "way back > >when" > > > > > > > >>I think it's clear they're going after applications again - buying many > >>proven foundational elements of a software development stack in one gulp. > >>What I wonder is what their next step might be - did they do this (and > >>InnoDB) to remove competition? Or do they expect to somehow monetize a new > >>stack? > >> > >> > >> > > > >My opinion is it's all about eliminating competition. InnoDB and JBoss > >don't give them code that is substantially different in a market effect > >sense, and sleepycat has only marginal value in the embedded space > >compared to the $$ oracle gets in the enterprise rdbms market. However > >killing JBoss would kill a competitor, and getting sleepycat puts an > >even tighter grip on mysql. Of course I haven't figured out where > >PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less > >ubiquitous. > > > > > > > >>Is Oracle trying to become an open source company? > >> > >> > >> > > > >At best they are trying to become a services company like IBM, but I > >still think they are just trying to slow down competition. > > > > > >Robert Treat > > > > > -- 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
Bruce, > Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source > databases? Sure. However, their communities can also fork them. That's unlikely with JBoss which is corporate, but PHP is pretty close to forking already. If Zend+Oracle tries to lock out MySQL from PHP, you'll see a fork real fast. -- --Josh Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source > databases? Just read the article, and did I miss something? Zend != PHP, at least not like Java == Sun ... PHP is not closed software, so how exactly would Oracle modify PHP to work poorly with open source databases? Now, I just checked the PHP5 LICENSE file, and it isn't GPL or BSD, but the license is held by 'The PHP Group', not by Zend ... Again, did I miss something that happened recently that put PHP under Zend's control? > > --------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Mike Ellsworth wrote: >> Robert Treat wrote: >> >> <Of course I haven't figured out where PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe >> to help make php/mysql less ubiquitous. > >> >> Just a guess - but it may be related to IBM's Open Ajax initiative. >> http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1917665,00.asp >> >> Presumably, web-apps are a big part of Oracle's future plans. If they >> own the better-known power tools, they'll be better able to control the >> web app "construction process" and help hatch more Salesforce dot com's, >> which I believe use Oracle. >> >> Next salvo could come from Adobe/Macromedia. They'll need to enter the >> fray soon. >> >> I think there is PG lemonade to be made from the lemons. >> >> >> >> >>> On Fri, 2006-02-10 at 11:41, Luke Lonergan wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Bruce, >>>> >>>> On 2/10/06 8:27 AM, "Bruce Momjian" <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> What they are _not_ getting involved in is software that is community >>>>> controlled, like PostgreSQL or Linux, because it much harder to see how >>>>> a purchase would allow tight control of the software, resulting in >>>>> revenue. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> True. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> Or tight control resulting in killing the competition. Even with the >>> death of great bridge, postgresql kept on going, and I'd say there is no >>> company currently that has as much sway as great bridge did "way back >>> when" >>> >>> >>> >>>> I think it's clear they're going after applications again - buying many >>>> proven foundational elements of a software development stack in one gulp. >>>> What I wonder is what their next step might be - did they do this (and >>>> InnoDB) to remove competition? Or do they expect to somehow monetize a new >>>> stack? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> My opinion is it's all about eliminating competition. InnoDB and JBoss >>> don't give them code that is substantially different in a market effect >>> sense, and sleepycat has only marginal value in the embedded space >>> compared to the $$ oracle gets in the enterprise rdbms market. However >>> killing JBoss would kill a competitor, and getting sleepycat puts an >>> even tighter grip on mysql. Of course I haven't figured out where >>> PHP/Zend fits into this... maybe to help make php/mysql less >>> ubiquitous. >>> >>> >>> >>>> Is Oracle trying to become an open source company? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >>> At best they are trying to become a services company like IBM, but I >>> still think they are just trying to slow down competition. >>> >>> >>> Robert Treat >>> >>> >> > > -- > 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 > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > >> Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source >> databases? > > Sure. However, their communities can also fork them. That's unlikely with > JBoss which is corporate, but PHP is pretty close to forking already. If > Zend+Oracle tries to lock out MySQL from PHP, you'll see a fork real fast. This was kinda my impression too ... I just worried that i might have missed something 'in the news' recently :( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Hi > Now, I just checked the PHP5 LICENSE file, and it isn't GPL or BSD, > but the license is held by 'The PHP Group', not by Zend ... Zend is the owner of the Zend Engine but not the owner of the PHP code. Conni
Josh Berkus wrote: > Bruce, > > > Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source > > databases? > > Sure. However, their communities can also fork them. That's unlikely with > JBoss which is corporate, but PHP is pretty close to forking already. If > Zend+Oracle tries to lock out MySQL from PHP, you'll see a fork real fast. OK, more realistic question. What if Oracle creates something like AJAX, which works with PHP/JBoss, and Oracle, but not with other databases because those other databases don't have the hooks? They are not removing functionality, but adding Oracle-specific stuff. -- 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
That seems a bit unlikely. PHP has been moving towards being DB agnostic. One of the discussed, though deferred plans for PHP 6 was to move all non PDO db api's out of the core. As far as AJAX+Oracle, I'm just wondering what kind of compelling offering that would be that would coax PHP developers out of the predominant open source db realm. If it were to be anything of note, it couldn't gain much audience if it were Oracle only. Note that one of the big initiatives going on at Zend right now is a Zend framework that has tapped most of the noted php based framework authors out there. I would guess the play is more in line to derail the Zend relationship with IBM and the Zend+IBM DB2 specific offerings. The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing MySQL into a corner. Zend has commercial offerings, though I think they've struggled to gain traction since they keep changing up the product offerings. Last I heard Yahoo! has more of the PHP brain trust than Zend does, if that helps clarify the impact to PHP any. Gavin On Feb 10, 2006, at 7:22 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Bruce, >> >>> Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open >>> source >>> databases? >> >> Sure. However, their communities can also fork them. That's >> unlikely with >> JBoss which is corporate, but PHP is pretty close to forking >> already. If >> Zend+Oracle tries to lock out MySQL from PHP, you'll see a fork >> real fast. > > OK, more realistic question. What if Oracle creates something like > AJAX, which works with PHP/JBoss, and Oracle, but not with other > databases because those other databases don't have the hooks? They > are > not removing functionality, but adding Oracle-specific stuff. > > -- > 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 > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? > > http://archives.postgresql.org
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Cornelia Boenigk wrote: > Hi > >> Now, I just checked the PHP5 LICENSE file, and it isn't GPL or BSD, >> but the license is held by 'The PHP Group', not by Zend ... > > Zend is the owner of the Zend Engine but not the owner of the PHP code. This is what I thought ... now, what happens if the Zend engine is pulled out of PHP? Does that cripple the PHP project, or just inconvience it? For instance, I know if I don't download/install the Zend Optimizer, and do a 'phpinfo()', it still lists the Zend Engine itself, so its part of the *base* PHP build ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc, > This is what I thought ... now, what happens if the Zend engine is pulled > out of PHP? Does that cripple the PHP project, or just inconvience it? > > For instance, I know if I don't download/install the Zend Optimizer, and > do a 'phpinfo()', it still lists the Zend Engine itself, so its part of > the *base* PHP build ... Actually, some of the PHP developers a couple years ago wanted to put PHP on Parrot and abandon the Zend Engine completely. There was a big showdown at PHPCon in 2003 or 2004 in which the independant developers battled it out with Zend and lost. I think Bruce was there, actually. So if Oracle+Zend tried to start changing the direction of PHP I think we'd see the direction of PHP change in short order. This might be a good thing, actually. On the other hand, I am worried about PDO. Currently I think both of the core PDO developers are working for Oracle, which could be bad news for real database agonosticism in the new driver. Another reason to look at Parrot. -- Josh Berkus Aglio Database Solutions San Francisco
Hi, > Actually, some of the PHP developers a couple years ago wanted to put PHP > on Parrot and abandon the Zend Engine completely. There was a big showdown > at PHPCon in 2003 or 2004 in which the independant developers battled it out > with Zend and lost. I think Bruce was there, actually. http://phplens.com/phpeverywhere/?q=node/view/84 is a part of an interview with Rasmus Lerdorf, about PHP6, Parrot and Zend. Regards, -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PL/php, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Hi Marc > For instance, I know if I don't download/install the Zend Optimizer, > and do a 'phpinfo()', it still lists the Zend Engine itself, so its > part of the *base* PHP build ... The PHP interpreter is based on Zend Engine, and this is licensed under a Apache-style license. So PHP would have to fork it. Conni
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Josh Berkus wrote: >> Bruce, >> >>> Could Oracle modify PHP and JBoss so they work poorly with open source >>> databases? >> >> Sure. However, their communities can also fork them. That's unlikely with >> JBoss which is corporate, but PHP is pretty close to forking already. If >> Zend+Oracle tries to lock out MySQL from PHP, you'll see a fork real fast. > > OK, more realistic question. What if Oracle creates something like > AJAX, which works with PHP/JBoss, and Oracle, but not with other > databases because those other databases don't have the hooks? They are > not removing functionality, but adding Oracle-specific stuff. Then nobody that uses an OSS database will adopt it ... ? ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing MySQL > into a corner. I'm not so much worried about MySQL as the other OSS that have used Berkeley DB as its backend ... stuff like Postfix, Cyrus IMAP, Cyrus SASL and sendmail come immediately to mind ... what 'alternatives' do they have? I know in my case, we have PostgreSQL backing a large portion of the stuff for Postfix/IMAP/SASL, but not everything has been extended to allow for 'alternate backends' ... of course, nothing really prevents that from happening if backed into a corner, but it does create for potential disruption in the overall OSS community ;( ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Marc,
>
> > This is what I thought ... now, what happens if the Zend engine is pulled
> > out of PHP? Does that cripple the PHP project, or just inconvience it?
> >
> > For instance, I know if I don't download/install the Zend Optimizer, and
> > do a 'phpinfo()', it still lists the Zend Engine itself, so its part of
> > the *base* PHP build ...
>
> Actually, some of the PHP developers a couple years ago wanted to put PHP on
> Parrot and abandon the Zend Engine completely. There was a big showdown at
> PHPCon in 2003 or 2004 in which the independant developers battled it out
> with Zend and lost. I think Bruce was there, actually.
I was at PHP International 2003. I don't think that was the turning
point, but I spent most of my time with the guys who were working on the
PHP/Parrot combination, called Pint:
http://www.php-mag.net/magphpde/magphpde_article/psecom,id,729,nodeid,21.html
> So if Oracle+Zend tried to start changing the direction of PHP I think we'd
> see the direction of PHP change in short order. This might be a good thing,
> actually.
>
> On the other hand, I am worried about PDO. Currently I think both of the core
> PDO developers are working for Oracle, which could be bad news for real
> database agnosticism in the new driver. Another reason to look at Parrot.
This highlights one of our vulnerabilities. Oracle bought InnoDB to
attack MySQL, and we don't think we have a similar vulnerability.
But there is so little money made in open source that small amounts of
money (by Oracle standards) can easily gain control over companies that
have embedded themselves in open source projects. Basically, to the
extent these purchases can be used to harm MySQL, they can be used to
harm us too.
Even if these projects do fork, it helps Oracle because open source has
a fragmented offering, and Oracle sits back and say "We have stable
tools for you".
Just like InnoDB, these seem like no-brainer purchases for Oracle
because they again offer the ability to control and/or hamper open
source.
--
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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> On the other hand, I am worried about PDO. Currently I think both of the core
> PDO developers are working for Oracle, which could be bad news for real
> database agonosticism in the new driver. Another reason to look at Parrot.
^^^^^^
I think you misspelled "Perl" ;)
- --
Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com
Perl: One standard database-agnostic interface since before PHP was released.
PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200602111330
http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iD8DBQFD7i55vJuQZxSWSsgRAp6XAKDduoHmu0PrTzOEhXb6TR2sRZkTXACfc+Dx
mVTG28c7QbAFB8WTzLgqwJg=
=mqAy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > This highlights one of our vulnerabilities. Oracle bought InnoDB to > attack MySQL, and we don't think we have a similar vulnerability. > > But there is so little money made in open source that small amounts of > money (by Oracle standards) can easily gain control over companies that > have embedded themselves in open source projects. Basically, to the > extent these purchases can be used to harm MySQL, they can be used to > harm us too. How? What external projects (or companies) do we rely on for our code base? As far as I know, we've been very careful about this, with the biggest one that ever gets mentioned time and again being the whole readline stuff ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote: > > > This highlights one of our vulnerabilities. Oracle bought InnoDB to > > attack MySQL, and we don't think we have a similar vulnerability. > > > > But there is so little money made in open source that small amounts of > > money (by Oracle standards) can easily gain control over companies that > > have embedded themselves in open source projects. Basically, to the > > extent these purchases can be used to harm MySQL, they can be used to > > harm us too. > > How? What external projects (or companies) do we rely on for our code > base? As far as I know, we've been very careful about this, with the > biggest one that ever gets mentioned time and again being the whole > readline stuff ... Ah, it isn't what we rely on, but the tools and languages our users rely on to make PostgreSQL useful. -- 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
* Bruce Momjian: >> How? What external projects (or companies) do we rely on for our code >> base? As far as I know, we've been very careful about this, with the >> biggest one that ever gets mentioned time and again being the whole >> readline stuff ... > > Ah, it isn't what we rely on, but the tools and languages our users rely > on to make PostgreSQL useful. But this is still far away from relying on externally licensed access methods which are developed according to the Cathedral model and whose zero-cost licenses are copyleft. Especially if you want to enable your own customers to build proprietary products using your technology. Curiously, the risk for MySQL here is not that Oracle becomes an Open Source company, but that they license InnoDB and Berkeley DB under open source licenses only (which would be a heavy blow to other Sleepycat customers as well, by the way).
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>>
>>> This highlights one of our vulnerabilities. Oracle bought InnoDB to
>>> attack MySQL, and we don't think we have a similar vulnerability.
>>>
>>> But there is so little money made in open source that small amounts of
>>> money (by Oracle standards) can easily gain control over companies that
>>> have embedded themselves in open source projects. Basically, to the
>>> extent these purchases can be used to harm MySQL, they can be used to
>>> harm us too.
>>
>> How? What external projects (or companies) do we rely on for our code
>> base? As far as I know, we've been very careful about this, with the
>> biggest one that ever gets mentioned time and again being the whole
>> readline stuff ...
>
> Ah, it isn't what we rely on, but the tools and languages our users rely
> on to make PostgreSQL useful.
Ah, okay ... stuff that would not only affect us, but pretty much anyone
using any OSS software on the Internet ... ie. gcc, java, php, perl,
python, ruby, etc ... most of which are in 'the public domain', not in a
commercial one, so it would be fairly difficult for Oracle to "buy them
out from under the community" ...
The thing is, if Oracle were to do a concerted effort to kill any of the
above, the 'bad karma' aspect would definitely backlash against them,
*but*, unless they took them *all* out, ppl would just migrate to one of
the many other options (as painful as it might be to some), or you'd see
alot of projects forking off the 'last stable OSS version' ...
hell, out of the three that we've been talking about from that press
release, the only one taht concerns me is the Sleepycat/Berkeley DB one,
since that is the foundation for *alot* of projects out there ... everyone
has been focusing on 'how this affects MySQL', but aren't looking too
closely at their own usage:
sendmail / postfix both use it for their various tables
cyrus imapd uses it for its mail databases
cyrus sasl2 uses it for its primary authentication database
spamassassin uses it for its bayes database
according to FreeBSD ports:
subversion uses it
openldap server uses it
Now, in alot of cases, the various server(s) also have extensions to allow
for other backends, but, for instance, there are several 'maps' within
postfix that I know haven't been converted to using an SQL backend of any
kind, but still rely on Berkeley DB ...
So, if you are going to be "concerned" about any of Oracle's acquisitions,
one should just look at their own desktop/servers to see how much the
SleepyCat one will potentially affect them :(
----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote: > Curiously, the risk for MySQL here is not that Oracle becomes an Open > Source company, but that they license InnoDB and Berkeley DB under open > source licenses only (which would be a heavy blow to other Sleepycat > customers as well, by the way). Now *that* is a possibility that I hadn't thought of ... so you are suggesting that Oracle's direction might be to remove the Dual-License in favor of a purely OSS license for those technologies? So, for instance, InnoDB would still be available, but *only* to those that haven't licensed a copy of MySQL? I like that one ... :) > ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
* Marc G. Fournier: > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote: > >> Curiously, the risk for MySQL here is not that Oracle becomes an >> Open Source company, but that they license InnoDB and Berkeley DB >> under open source licenses only (which would be a heavy blow to >> other Sleepycat customers as well, by the way). > > Now *that* is a possibility that I hadn't thought of ... so you are > suggesting that Oracle's direction might be to remove the Dual-License > in favor of a purely OSS license for those technologies? If I were a MySQL customer who needed the dual-license option, I would be very concerned about this possibility, especially since two backends in a row have been hit. > So, for instance, InnoDB would still be available, but *only* to > those that haven't licensed a copy of MySQL? I like that one ... :) I think you mean "available only under the terms of the GPL", and "licensed a copy of MySQL under terms different from the GPL". 8-)
* Marc G. Fournier: > according to FreeBSD ports: > > subversion uses it > openldap server uses it And the latter is really crucial and they could hardly switch to anything else without losing credibility. Sleepycat also has got an impressive customer list: <http://www.sleepycat.com/customers/customerlist.html> Most of these companies already have to deal with Oracle, though. 8-/ > So, if you are going to be "concerned" about any of Oracle's > acquisitions, one should just look at their own desktop/servers to see > how much the SleepyCat one will potentially affect them :( I'm running a custom-written database on top of Berkeley DB (which I plan to migrate to PostgreSQL for the sake of ad-hoc queries), and I'm not *that* concerned. I'm using Sleepycat's copyleft licensing option, and nobody can take that copy away from me. Your mail servers are probably similar: the copyleft license you already have is good enough.
Marc G. Fournier writes: >> according to FreeBSD ports: >> subversion uses it berkeley db is deprecated for subversion. it was proving unreliable in the application and there's a native representation now which is prefered. my subversion repositories are all in the new format, bdb repositories are prone to random unrecoverable corruption problems. richard -- Richard P. Welty rwelty@averillpark.net 518-269-8232
> I'm using Sleepycat's copyleft licensing > option, and nobody can take that copy away from me. Your mail servers > are probably similar: the copyleft license you already have is good > enough. It think the GNU licensing has already been once revoked from bottom up in US court of law and that might be used as preliminary case if Oracle wants to press the issue. BSD-licensing is harder to hit that way, but GPL believability in OSS might be hit hard. (the pointers to the case in question can be found somewhere on FreeBSD website - topic was comparation of BSD and GPL licenses) -Reko
On Feb 12, 2006, at 9:09 PM, Reko Turja wrote: >> I'm using Sleepycat's copyleft licensing >> option, and nobody can take that copy away from me. Your mail >> servers >> are probably similar: the copyleft license you already have is good >> enough. > It think the GNU licensing has already been once revoked from > bottom up in US court of law and that might be used as preliminary > case if Oracle wants to press the issue. BSD-licensing is harder to > hit that way, but GPL believability in OSS might be hit hard. i've not heard this before about GPL and find it a little hard to believe that something of this importance could happen without becoming common knowledge. i'm not a huge fan of the GPL, but this sounds somewhat fudish as presented. > (the pointers to the case in question can be found somewhere on > FreeBSD website - topic was comparation of BSD and GPL licenses) i think you need to provide these. the freebsd website is quite large. richard -- Richard P. Welty rwelty@averillpark.net 518-269-8232
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Richard P. Welty wrote: > > On Feb 12, 2006, at 9:09 PM, Reko Turja wrote: > >>> I'm using Sleepycat's copyleft licensing >>> option, and nobody can take that copy away from me. Your mail servers >>> are probably similar: the copyleft license you already have is good >>> enough. > >> It think the GNU licensing has already been once revoked from bottom up in >> US court of law and that might be used as preliminary case if Oracle wants >> to press the issue. BSD-licensing is harder to hit that way, but GPL >> believability in OSS might be hit hard. > > i've not heard this before about GPL and find it a little hard to > believe that something of this importance could happen without > becoming common knowledge. i'm not a huge fan of the GPL, but this > sounds somewhat fudish as presented. "The GPL explicitly disallows revoking the license. It has occurred , however, that a company (Mattel) purchased a GPL copyright (cphack), revoked the entire copyright, went to court, and prevailed [2]. That is, they legally revoked the entire distribution and all derivative works based on the copyright. Whether this could happen with a larger and more dispersed distribution is an open question; there is also some confusion regarding whether the software was really under the GPL." http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/license-cannot.html Here is something about it, but nothing about Mattel getting it revoked: http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35226,00.html And the [2] link above points to: http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ Not 100% certain how the FreeBSD folks intepreted this as 'legally revoked the entire distribution ..." though, I'm not too sure ... ---- Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org) Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664
On Feb 12, 2006, at 10:28 PM, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > Here is something about it, but nothing about Mattel getting it > revoked: > > http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,35226,00.html > > And the [2] link above points to: > > http://archives.cnn.com/2000/TECH/computing/03/28/cyberpatrol.mirrors/ > > Not 100% certain how the FreeBSD folks intepreted this as 'legally > revoked the entire distribution ..." though, I'm not too sure ... ok, now i have enough to google on. i did find the followup to the wired article here, which indicates that the judge's actual ruling was vague and confusing: http://www.wired.com/news/business/0,1367,35258,00.html and the following which suggests that parts of cphack were not properly noticed as GPL: http://www.topgold.com/training/webcourse/handouts/eff/cphack.html so on the whole, i think that the lessons to be drawn from the case may not be those that the freebsd.org authors want you to take from it. richard -- Richard P. Welty rwelty@averillpark.net 518-269-8232
* Richard P. Welty: > Marc G. Fournier writes: >>> according to FreeBSD ports: > >>> subversion uses it > > berkeley db is deprecated for subversion. No, it's not. Go read the documentation. > it was proving unreliable in the application People in the field couldn't administrate it people because they failed to grok the Berkeley DB documentation. This is only partly Berkeley DB's fault, of course, but some blame has to be put on the administrators, too.
* Marc G. Fournier: > "The GPL explicitly disallows revoking the license. It has occurred , > however, that a company (Mattel) purchased a GPL copyright (cphack), > revoked the entire copyright, went to court, and prevailed [2]. That > is, they legally revoked the entire distribution and all derivative > works based on the copyright. Whether this could happen with a larger > and more dispersed distribution is an open question; there is also > some confusion regarding whether the software was really under the > GPL." > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/license-cannot.html Nice spin indeed. The software in question was of questionable legality in the first place. Without reading the actual court ruling, we can't know if this was a factor in the ruling. Furthermore, it can only affect distribution, not use (= running) of copies you already have.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 04:34:23PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: > The thing is, if Oracle were to do a concerted effort to kill any of the > above, the 'bad karma' aspect would definitely backlash against them, > *but*, unless they took them *all* out, ppl would just migrate to one of > the many other options (as painful as it might be to some), or you'd see > alot of projects forking off the 'last stable OSS version' ... I think Oracle could do everything possible to screw OSS software and it would make barely a blip on their income statement. Sure, geeks all over would get seriously pissed-off, but those are not the folks who make the Oracle purchasing decisions (certainly not the big ones anyway). -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Feb 13, 2006, at 1:01 PM, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Sun, Feb 12, 2006 at 04:34:23PM -0400, Marc G. Fournier wrote: >> The thing is, if Oracle were to do a concerted effort to kill any >> of the >> above, the 'bad karma' aspect would definitely backlash against them, >> *but*, unless they took them *all* out, ppl would just migrate to >> one of >> the many other options (as painful as it might be to some), or >> you'd see >> alot of projects forking off the 'last stable OSS version' ... > > I think Oracle could do everything possible to screw OSS software > and it > would make barely a blip on their income statement. Sure, geeks all > over > would get seriously pissed-off, but those are not the folks who > make the > Oracle purchasing decisions (certainly not the big ones anyway). I'm sure oracle isn't too concerned about their public image. Look at the PeopleSoft fiasco. They didn't care. Ellison decided he wanted them and by golly, he did. "We're the phone company, and we don't care" -- Jeff Trout <jeff@jefftrout.com> http://www.jefftrout.com/ http://www.stuarthamm.net/
Centuries ago, Nostradamus foresaw when scrappy@postgresql.org ("Marc G. Fournier") would write:
> On Sat, 11 Feb 2006, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
>> This highlights one of our vulnerabilities. Oracle bought InnoDB to
>> attack MySQL, and we don't think we have a similar vulnerability.
>>
>> But there is so little money made in open source that small amounts
>> of money (by Oracle standards) can easily gain control over
>> companies that have embedded themselves in open source projects.
>> Basically, to the extent these purchases can be used to harm MySQL,
>> they can be used to harm us too.
>
> How? What external projects (or companies) do we rely on for our code
> base? As far as I know, we've been very careful about this, with the
> biggest one that ever gets mentioned time and again being the whole
> readline stuff ...
PostgreSQL may not itself directly rely on external projects.
But people *using* it have external dependancies.
- Perl users usually depend on DBI; an "attack" on DBI could make
PostgreSQL "less usable" for them.
- PHP users depend on the drivers integrated into the PHP "stack;"
if Oracle gains control over organizations deeply involved in
determining what is in that stack, that can be bad news for
"all databases other than Oracle."
The PHP situation is the characteristic one to watch, as that is the
one which Oracle is influencing...
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com';
http://linuxfinances.info/info/lsf.html
Rules of the Evil Overlord #43. "I will maintain a healthy amount of
skepticism when I capture the beautiful rebel and she claims she is
attracted to my power and good looks and will gladly betray her
companions if I just let her in on my plans."
<http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
Sitting on the Oraocle table at OSBC this morning was a press release announcing that they just bought sleepycat. http://www.infoworld.com/article/06/02/14/75352_HNoraclebuyssleepycat_1.html In other news, Sun has open-sourced their latest CPU (http://opensparc.net) and EDB gave a brief presentation. Sun's COO, Jonathan Schwartz (holy cow he's young) gave a keynote, and one of the more interesting things he mentioned was that open source enters organizations from the ground up; individual users deciding to use software, not corporate edicts. How does that relate to PostgreSQL? It becomes a matter of: what are we doing to entice developers to choose PostgreSQL over some other database, especially open source developers? As an example, think of how many businesses now have MySQL installed on at least one machine in order to support bugzilla? -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
> - Perl users usually depend on DBI; an "attack" on DBI could make > PostgreSQL "less usable" for them. How do you see an attack on DBI could be possible? AFAIK DBI has the same license as Perl, is released on CPAN and i behaving like any other CPAN module. -- Med venlig hilsen Kaare Rasmussen, Jasonic Jasonic Telefon: +45 3816 2582 Nordre Fasanvej 12 2000 Frederiksberg Email: kaare@jasonic.dk
The world rejoiced as kaare@jasonic.dk (Kaare Rasmussen) wrote: >> - Perl users usually depend on DBI; an "attack" on DBI could make >> PostgreSQL "less usable" for them. > > How do you see an attack on DBI could be possible? AFAIK DBI has the same > license as Perl, is released on CPAN and i behaving like any other CPAN > module. If Oracle hired off all the people that have worked on the DBI implementation, that would make it troublesome for a team to emerge to continue to support it. There would be a "learning curve" period, at the very least... -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'gmail.com'; http://linuxfinances.info/info/lsf.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #43. "I will maintain a healthy amount of skepticism when I capture the beautiful rebel and she claims she is attracted to my power and good looks and will gladly betray her companions if I just let her in on my plans." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
On 2/15/06, Christopher Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
It's nice that this was mentioned because it's true with all open source projects regardless of the license. Sure, PostgreSQL's IP can't be bought and used for ransom (like GPL'd stuff), but a commercial company hiring ALL the developers would certainly put some control restrictions on the open source project. Of course, anyone that wasn't hired and remained with the open source project could probably make a killing in support and contributions :)
The GPL, while nice in its intent, sucks for businesses. This is especially true when companies like MySQL aren't responsible and base a majority of their product on a ton of IP they don't own. Who gets screwed? It's actually MySQL's customers. MySQL could go out of business, oh well. But the customers that wanted to ship an embedded MySQL now have to bow down to Oracle whether it's directly or indirectly.
-Jonah
The world rejoiced as kaare@jasonic.dk (Kaare Rasmussen) wrote:
>> - Perl users usually depend on DBI; an "attack" on DBI could make
>> PostgreSQL "less usable" for them.
>
> How do you see an attack on DBI could be possible? AFAIK DBI has the same
> license as Perl, is released on CPAN and i behaving like any other CPAN
> module.
If Oracle hired off all the people that have worked on the DBI
implementation, that would make it troublesome for a team to emerge to
continue to support it. There would be a "learning curve" period, at
the very least...
It's nice that this was mentioned because it's true with all open source projects regardless of the license. Sure, PostgreSQL's IP can't be bought and used for ransom (like GPL'd stuff), but a commercial company hiring ALL the developers would certainly put some control restrictions on the open source project. Of course, anyone that wasn't hired and remained with the open source project could probably make a killing in support and contributions :)
The GPL, while nice in its intent, sucks for businesses. This is especially true when companies like MySQL aren't responsible and base a majority of their product on a ton of IP they don't own. Who gets screwed? It's actually MySQL's customers. MySQL could go out of business, oh well. But the customers that wanted to ship an embedded MySQL now have to bow down to Oracle whether it's directly or indirectly.
-Jonah
jonah.harris@gmail.com ("Jonah H. Harris") writes:
> The GPL, while nice in its intent, sucks for businesses.
It _doesn't_ suck if you are the business that owns the entirety of
the code. If you are *that* business, you have plenty O choices,
pointedly including:
- Selling under other licenses to make mucho dinero
- Selling all your rights to Oracle for a big bundle of money
Those factors definitely *don't* suck if you are the owner of the
code.
> This is especially true when companies like MySQL aren't responsible
> and base a majority of their product on a ton of IP they don't own.
> Who gets screwed? It's actually MySQL's customers. MySQL could go
> out of business, oh well. But the customers that wanted to ship an
> embedded MySQL now have to bow down to Oracle whether it's directly
> or indirectly.
Of course, the GPL evidently can "suck quite a bit" if you're a
customer, and don't have any ownership of the code...
--
output = ("cbbrowne" "@" "cbbrowne.com")
http://cbbrowne.com/info/languages.html
"What if you slept? And what if, in your sleep, you dreamed?
And what if, in your dream, you went to heaven and there
plucked a strange and beautiful flower? And what if, when
you awoke, you had the flower in your hand? Ah, what then?"
--Coleridge
On 2/15/06, Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org> wrote:
True. I was relating to customers of companies using the GPL; Although, thanks for clarifying it for everyone.
-Jonah
jonah.harris@gmail.com ("Jonah H. Harris") writes:
> The GPL, while nice in its intent, sucks for businesses.
It _doesn't_ suck if you are the business that owns the entirety of
the code. If you are *that* business, you have plenty O choices,
pointedly including:
- Selling under other licenses to make mucho dinero
- Selling all your rights to Oracle for a big bundle of money
Those factors definitely *don't* suck if you are the owner of the
code.
True. I was relating to customers of companies using the GPL; Although, thanks for clarifying it for everyone.
-Jonah
> Those factors definitely *don't* suck if you are the owner of the > code. > > Keep in mind that the GPL has enabled mySQL to make 20-30 million bucks in the last year. And although we may think that MySQL sucks and we do have lots of converts. I know many, many businesses that are perfectly happy with it. Nobody in the PostgreSQL community is even close to make 20-30 million bucks ON PostgreSQL. Joshua D. Drake -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PLphp, PLperl - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Josh, On 2/15/06 9:21 AM, "Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com> wrote: > Nobody in the PostgreSQL community is even close to make 20-30 million > bucks ON PostgreSQL. Speak for yourself ;-) Our aim to get there and preserve the community in a sustainable way. - Luke
Hi, > Actually, some of the PHP developers a couple years ago wanted to put PHP > on > Parrot and abandon the Zend Engine completely. There was a big showdown > at > PHPCon in 2003 or 2004 in which the independant developers battled it out > with Zend and lost. I think Bruce was there, actually. http://phplens.com/phpeverywhere/?q=node/view/84) is a part of an interview with Rasmus Lerdorf, about PHP6, Parrot and Zend. Regards, -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: PL/php, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
I'm not aware of any repeatable database corruption related to Subversion and Berkeley DB, ever. We've seen reports of corrupted databases in the past, but those were isolated events, caused either by hardware failure or configuration errors (such as placing BDB database environments on NFS volumes). The issue that did come up fairly often is the situation where the Berkeley DB database would become inaccessible because the Subversion server exited holding BDB handles/mutexes due to an unexpected system or application failure. This situation required manual intervention (running database recovery) by the server administrator. The Berkeley DB 4.X release includes additional functionality intended to simplify BDB usage in multi-process applications like Subversion. In addition, Sleepycat Software funded Subversion developers to modify Subversion to take advantage of that new functionality. The BDB 4.X releases are already public, and I expect the Subversion changes to be part of the svn-1.3.1 release. With the release of a reasonable integration between Subversion and Berkeley DB, I believe the reports of Subversion problems with BDB will finally be resolved. To be clear, the problem was never with Berkeley DB or, for that matter, with Subversion -- the problem was they were incorrectly integrated. Regards, --keith =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Keith Bostic bostic@sleepycat.com Sleepycat Software Inc. keithbosticim (Yahoo IM) 118 Tower Rd. +1-781-259-3139 Lincoln, MA 01773 http://www.sleepycat.com
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > >> The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing >> MySQL into a corner. > > > I'm not so much worried about MySQL as the other OSS that have used > Berkeley DB as its backend ... stuff like Postfix, Cyrus IMAP, Cyrus > SASL and sendmail come immediately to mind ... what 'alternatives' do > they have? I know in my case, we have PostgreSQL backing a large > portion of the stuff for Postfix/IMAP/SASL, but not everything has > been extended to allow for 'alternate backends' ... of course, nothing > really prevents that from happening if backed into a corner, but it > does create for potential disruption in the overall OSS community ;( > But these don't have the problems that MySQL does. They can stay with older versions, build a community to fork BDB under a similar OSS-only license, etc. MySQL doesn't have that luxury because they have opted to go the dual-licensing way. In essence they are dependant on commercial agreements with Sleepycate, InnoDB, etc. to offer functionality to customers using their software with non-Free code. MySQL could still re-release the client libs LGPL of course and that might get them out of it but that would be a painful transition. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 01:29:32PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > > > >>The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing > >>MySQL into a corner. > > > > > >I'm not so much worried about MySQL as the other OSS that have used > >Berkeley DB as its backend ... stuff like Postfix, Cyrus IMAP, Cyrus > >SASL and sendmail come immediately to mind ... what 'alternatives' do > >they have? I know in my case, we have PostgreSQL backing a large > >portion of the stuff for Postfix/IMAP/SASL, but not everything has > >been extended to allow for 'alternate backends' ... of course, nothing > >really prevents that from happening if backed into a corner, but it > >does create for potential disruption in the overall OSS community ;( > > > But these don't have the problems that MySQL does. They can stay with > older versions, build a community to fork BDB under a similar OSS-only > license, etc. > > MySQL doesn't have that luxury because they have opted to go the > dual-licensing way. In essence they are dependant on commercial > agreements with Sleepycate, InnoDB, etc. to offer functionality to > customers using their software with non-Free code. > > MySQL could still re-release the client libs LGPL of course and that > might get them out of it but that would be a painful transition. Just in case anyone hasn't heard; MySQL bought 2 folks from Firebird: http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
On Friday 24 February 2006 18:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 01:29:32PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote: > > Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > >On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gavin M. Roy wrote: > > >>The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing > > >>MySQL into a corner. > > > > > >I'm not so much worried about MySQL as the other OSS that have used > > >Berkeley DB as its backend ... stuff like Postfix, Cyrus IMAP, Cyrus > > >SASL and sendmail come immediately to mind ... what 'alternatives' do > > >they have? I know in my case, we have PostgreSQL backing a large > > >portion of the stuff for Postfix/IMAP/SASL, but not everything has > > >been extended to allow for 'alternate backends' ... of course, nothing > > >really prevents that from happening if backed into a corner, but it > > >does create for potential disruption in the overall OSS community ;( > > > > But these don't have the problems that MySQL does. They can stay with > > older versions, build a community to fork BDB under a similar OSS-only > > license, etc. > > > > MySQL doesn't have that luxury because they have opted to go the > > dual-licensing way. In essence they are dependant on commercial > > agreements with Sleepycate, InnoDB, etc. to offer functionality to > > customers using their software with non-Free code. > > > > MySQL could still re-release the client libs LGPL of course and that > > might get them out of it but that would be a painful transition. > > Just in case anyone hasn't heard; MySQL bought 2 folks from Firebird: > http://firebird.sourceforge.net/ You gotta spend that series c money somehow... http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2006_10.html -- Robert Treat Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
fyi
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2006/jw-0227-iw-opensource.html
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign .
\ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail .
X - NO Word docs in e-mail .
/ \ -----------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2006/jw-0227-iw-opensource.html
On 2/25/06, Robert Treat <xzilla@users.sourceforge.net> wrote:
On Friday 24 February 2006 18:45, Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 24, 2006 at 01:29:32PM -0800, Chris Travers wrote:
> > Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> > >On Fri, 10 Feb 2006, Gavin M. Roy wrote:
> > >>The Sleepycat purchase seems to be more of the no-brainer boxing
> > >>MySQL into a corner.
> > >
> > >I'm not so much worried about MySQL as the other OSS that have used
> > >Berkeley DB as its backend ... stuff like Postfix, Cyrus IMAP, Cyrus
> > >SASL and sendmail come immediately to mind ... what 'alternatives' do
> > >they have? I know in my case, we have PostgreSQL backing a large
> > >portion of the stuff for Postfix/IMAP/SASL, but not everything has
> > >been extended to allow for 'alternate backends' ... of course, nothing
> > >really prevents that from happening if backed into a corner, but it
> > >does create for potential disruption in the overall OSS community ;(
> >
> > But these don't have the problems that MySQL does. They can stay with
> > older versions, build a community to fork BDB under a similar OSS-only
> > license, etc.
> >
> > MySQL doesn't have that luxury because they have opted to go the
> > dual-licensing way. In essence they are dependant on commercial
> > agreements with Sleepycate, InnoDB, etc. to offer functionality to
> > customers using their software with non-Free code.
> >
> > MySQL could still re-release the client libs LGPL of course and that
> > might get them out of it but that would be a painful transition.
>
> Just in case anyone hasn't heard; MySQL bought 2 folks from Firebird:
> http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
You gotta spend that series c money somehow...
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/press-release/release_2006_10.html
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
--
/"\ ASCII Ribbon Campaign .
\ / - NO HTML/RTF in e-mail .
X - NO Word docs in e-mail .
/ \ -----------------------------------------------------------------
On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote: > fyi > > http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2006/jw-0227-iw-opensource.html "Each of the top three relational database vendors—IBM, Microsoft, and Oracle—now offers a version of its flagship product for download, free of charge." Man, have the 1984 history re-writers been at it, or are people just clueless? Oracle has allowed free downloads since at least 9i. And what's more, those were uncrippled versions. You just couldn't use them legally in production. -- Jim C. Nasby, Sr. Engineering Consultant jnasby@pervasive.com Pervasive Software http://pervasive.com work: 512-231-6117 vcard: http://jim.nasby.net/pervasive.vcf cell: 512-569-9461
Jim C. Nasby wrote: > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote: > >> fyi >> >> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2006/jw-0227-iw-opensource.html >> > > "Each of the top three relational database vendors—IBM, Microsoft, > and Oracle—now offers a version of its flagship product for > download, free of charge." > > Man, have the 1984 history re-writers been at it, or are people just > clueless? Oracle has allowed free downloads since at least 9i. And > what's more, those were uncrippled versions. You just couldn't use them > legally in production. > They probably mean free to use in production. Joshua D. Drake
On Monday 27 February 2006 17:14, Joshua D. Drake wrote: > Jim C. Nasby wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 27, 2006 at 11:25:32AM +0000, Guido Barosio wrote: > >> fyi > >> > >> http://www.javaworld.com/javaworld/jw-02-2006/jw-0227-iw-opensource.html > > > > "Each of the top three relational database vendors—IBM, Microsoft, > > and Oracle—now offers a version of its flagship product for > > download, free of charge." > > > > Man, have the 1984 history re-writers been at it, or are people just > > clueless? Oracle has allowed free downloads since at least 9i. And > > what's more, those were uncrippled versions. You just couldn't use them > > legally in production. > > They probably mean free to use in production. they need to be linking against -ldwimnwis in that event. > > Joshua D. Drake > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@postgresql.org so that your > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly -- Darcy Buskermolen Wavefire Technologies Corp. http://www.wavefire.com ph: 250.717.0200 fx: 250.763.1759
On 2/28/06, Darcy Buskermolen <darcy@wavefire.com> wrote:
Gotta love that library :)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324
they need to be linking against -ldwimnwis in that event.
Gotta love that library :)
--
Jonah H. Harris, Database Internals Architect
EnterpriseDB Corporation
732.331.1324
Marc G. Fournier wrote: > > "The GPL explicitly disallows revoking the license. It has occurred , > however, that a company (Mattel) purchased a GPL copyright (cphack), > revoked the entire copyright, went to court, and prevailed [2]. That > is, they legally revoked the entire distribution and all derivative > works based on the copyright. Whether this could happen with a larger > and more dispersed distribution is an open question; there is also > some confusion regarding whether the software was really under the GPL." > > http://www.freebsd.org/doc/en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/bsdl-gpl/license-cannot.html > Some cursory research into this indicates that it was a case where software licenses were never an issue. Indeed, Mattel as far as I can see never acquired cphack. There are also questions whether hte software was validly released under the GPL. However, the 1st Circuit ruled that nonparties are not bound by the final injunction without additional lawsuits. Here is some more info: http://cphack.robinlionheart.com/ > > Not 100% certain how the FreeBSD folks intepreted this as 'legally > revoked the entire distribution ..." though, I'm not too sure ... > The final injunction sort of read that way, but the first circuit narrowed it because if a nonparty could not challenge it, they could not be bound by it. Best Wishes, Chris Travers
Attachment
Oh, my.... I wonder how they came to these conclusions! http://linuxpr.com/releases/8687.html "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including stored procedures, triggers and views -- the reasons why we were looking at PostgreSQL no longer existed," continued Vertucci. "MySQL proved to be easier to set up, easier to manage and has become a widely-deployed standard in the developing countries, helping governments to achieve significant costs savings, without sacrificing database speed and power." Cheers, Josh
"FAO has also subscribed to the MySQL Network subscription offering, which includes certified software, production support and proactive advisor services." It was a commercial move, where variables such as production support and advisor services directly from MySQL AB count, though. g.- On 5/2/06, Joshua Kramer <josh@bitbuckets.com> wrote: > > Oh, my.... I wonder how they came to these conclusions! > > http://linuxpr.com/releases/8687.html > > "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including stored > procedures, triggers and views -- the reasons why we were looking at > PostgreSQL no longer existed," continued Vertucci. "MySQL proved to be > easier to set up, easier to manage and has become a widely-deployed > standard in the developing countries, helping governments to achieve > significant costs savings, without sacrificing database speed and power." > > Cheers, > Josh > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- Guido Barosio ----------------------- http://www.globant.com guido.barosio@globant.com
Joshua Kramer wrote: > > Oh, my.... I wonder how they came to these conclusions! The MySQL sales staff. > > http://linuxpr.com/releases/8687.html > > "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including stored > procedures, triggers and views -- the reasons why we were looking at > PostgreSQL no longer existed," continued Vertucci. "MySQL proved to be > easier to set up, easier to manage and has become a widely-deployed > standard in the developing countries, helping governments to achieve > significant costs savings, without sacrificing database speed and power." > > Cheers, > Josh > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
On Tue, 2006-05-02 at 15:39 -0400, Joshua Kramer wrote: > "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including > stored procedures, triggers and views - PostgreSQL has all of them for years, they are well tested and advanced features. I would not use MySQL just because of new features... Anyway, as people stated out, this seems a MySQL's press release. -- The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.503.667.4564 PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/
Yeah, but the Oil for Food Program used Oracle ;-) Joshua Kramer wrote: > > Oh, my.... I wonder how they came to these conclusions! > > http://linuxpr.com/releases/8687.html > > "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including stored > procedures, triggers and views -- the reasons why we were looking at > PostgreSQL no longer existed," continued Vertucci. "MySQL proved to be > easier to set up, easier to manage and has become a widely-deployed > standard in the developing countries, helping governments to achieve > significant costs savings, without sacrificing database speed and power." > > Cheers, > Josh > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > > >
Ned Lilly wrote: > Yeah, but the Oil for Food Program used Oracle ;-) Ouch. > > > Joshua Kramer wrote: >> >> Oh, my.... I wonder how they came to these conclusions! >> >> http://linuxpr.com/releases/8687.html >> >> "With the release of MySQL 5.0 and its new features -- including >> stored procedures, triggers and views -- the reasons why we were >> looking at PostgreSQL no longer existed," continued Vertucci. "MySQL >> proved to be easier to set up, easier to manage and has become a >> widely-deployed standard in the developing countries, helping >> governments to achieve significant costs savings, without sacrificing >> database speed and power." >> >> Cheers, >> Josh >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq >> >> >> > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend > -- === The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. === Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/