Thread: MySQL analysis
I think this blog posting titled "Postgres is not for sale" by Greg
Sabino Mullane contains useful information for a lot of new people to
Postgres as it relates our project and the MySQL purchase:
http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/authors/1-Greg-Sabino-Mullane
And it makes us look good. Is there some way we should get this more
visibility?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Bruce Momjian wrote: > I think this blog posting titled "Postgres is not for sale" by Greg > Sabino Mullane contains useful information for a lot of new people to > Postgres as it relates our project and the MySQL purchase: > > http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/authors/1-Greg-Sabino-Mullane > > And it makes us look good. Is there some way we should get this more > visibility? If Greg is willing it could be part of a larger why PostgreSQL document that imo could be on the main site under about/advantages or something like that. Joshua D. Drake
It isnt a bad idea to add it to the main site... and as a plus people that's memeber of a pug or have interesting discussions in their locals lists, could also give opinions about it and expand the doc. In my opinion, besides the money part... there should be also reasons that make postgres a Non-buyable open source project... Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other developers. 2008/1/21, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>: > Bruce Momjian wrote: > > I think this blog posting titled "Postgres is not for sale" by Greg > > Sabino Mullane contains useful information for a lot of new people to > > Postgres as it relates our project and the MySQL purchase: > > > > http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/authors/1-Greg-Sabino-Mullane > > > > And it makes us look good. Is there some way we should get this more > > visibility? > > If Greg is willing it could be part of a larger why PostgreSQL document > that imo could be on the main site under about/advantages or something > like that. > > Joshua D. Drake > > > > ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at > > http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate >
Can we fix the grammar? :) "It's hard to see if this will be good or bad for Postgres (the product of the project)" Pretty sure that last of should be or... On Jan 21, 2008, at 9:15 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote: > It isnt a bad idea to add it to the main site... and as a plus people > that's memeber of a pug or have interesting discussions in their > locals lists, could also give opinions about it and expand the doc. > > In my opinion, besides the money part... there should be also reasons > that make postgres a Non-buyable open source project... > > Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a > fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other > developers. > > 2008/1/21, Joshua D. Drake <jd@commandprompt.com>: >> Bruce Momjian wrote: >>> I think this blog posting titled "Postgres is not for sale" by Greg >>> Sabino Mullane contains useful information for a lot of new >>> people to >>> Postgres as it relates our project and the MySQL purchase: >>> >>> http://people.planetpostgresql.org/greg/index.php?/authors/ >>> 1-Greg-Sabino-Mullane >>> >>> And it makes us look good. Is there some way we should get this >>> more >>> visibility? >> >> If Greg is willing it could be part of a larger why PostgreSQL >> document >> that imo could be on the main site under about/advantages or >> something >> like that. >> >> Joshua D. Drake >> >> >> >> ---------------------------(end of >> broadcast)--------------------------- >> TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at >> >> http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate >> > > ---------------------------(end of > broadcast)--------------------------- > TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? > > http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq > -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Attachment
On 1/20/2008 8:45 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote: > Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a > fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other > developers. As has been said many times before, buying Postgres is virtually impossible because the copyright isn't held by a single entity. So in the Postgres case, this threat doesn't exist. That said, if you look through any number of blog threads related to MySQL licensing (which has changed in the past and will change again in the future for sure), you will see in each and every one of them the same proposal. It basically goes "take the last GPL version and fork". While technically and legal this seems sound, practically it won't work. There is nobody out there in the MySQL open source community who is familiar with the servers code base. All the MySQL server developers are employees of ... Sun now. And I doubt they will be flocking around an open source fork in big numbers. So the initial road map of that open source fork project will have one single item: "Study the code base" for a year or more. That is how long it took people like Bruce Momjian, Vadim Mikheev, Thomas Lockhart, Jan Wieck and others back in the mid 90's to get to a point, where some substantial new Postgres feature didn't break half of the existing functionality by accident. I doubt Sun has any dramatic license changes for the near term future in mind. But part of the reason to pay $1B for an acquisition is to earn some money with it. If you look around, the revenue estimates are some $60 to $70 million dollar US for 2007 (the official numbers aren't published). Over half of that, according to MySQL, is coming from license fees, the other (smaller) half is from services and support. Since licensing offers a much better profit margin than services, it seems reasonable to assume that much of Suns focus will be on that part of the business. Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, 24 Jan 2008 13:44:15 -0500 Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> wrote: > I doubt Sun has any dramatic license changes for the near term future > in mind. But part of the reason to pay $1B for an acquisition is to > earn some money with it. If you look around, the revenue estimates > are some $60 to $70 million dollar US for 2007 (the official numbers > aren't published). Over half of that, according to MySQL, is coming > from license fees, the other (smaller) half is from services and > support. Since licensing offers a much better profit margin than > services, it seems reasonable to assume that much of Suns focus will > be on that part of the business. > IMO, Sun bought mysql for a simple reason. To sell servers. Companies like having a single entity to go to. If *I* as joe shop can say, I need a LAMP solution.. Sun can say, "For 9995.00, you get a decent, supported LAMP solution that is 100% open source running on our famously kick butt hardware and our famously kick butt now open source Solaris operating system. Oh and btw, you get MySQL the World's most *cough cough wink wink* popular database system." Heck I could sell that with my eyes closed and an Elephant on my back. Of course Sun has to execute, and that is a whole other ball of ear wax for them. Sincerely, Joshua D. Drake - -- The PostgreSQL Company: Since 1997, http://www.commandprompt.com/ Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate SELECT 'Training', 'Consulting' FROM vendor WHERE name = 'CMD' -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFHmPc3ATb/zqfZUUQRAqTHAJoCurIyEK8RaBPR3jhcBMKMdqMxJwCfXrrU zJlLmK1lbibGtX4NVsVT6dQ= =C/nw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:15PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: > On 1/20/2008 8:45 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote: > > >Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a > >fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other > >developers. > > As has been said many times before, buying Postgres is virtually > impossible because the copyright isn't held by a single entity. So in > the Postgres case, this threat doesn't exist. Not only that, but even if someone did buy the copyright, it doesn't buy them anything because everything is currently under BSD. You could instantly fork the code and lose nothing. Even if someone came along and bought the rights to the name, it still doesn't buy much; we can just change the name. Oh wait, we've tried that... I guess if someone bought the name we really would be hosed! ;P -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Attachment
On Friday 25 January 2008 01:57, Decibel! wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:15PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote:
> > On 1/20/2008 8:45 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote:
> > >Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a
> > >fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other
> > >developers.
> >
> > As has been said many times before, buying Postgres is virtually
> > impossible because the copyright isn't held by a single entity. So in
> > the Postgres case, this threat doesn't exist.
>
> Not only that, but even if someone did buy the copyright, it doesn't buy
> them anything because everything is currently under BSD. You could
> instantly fork the code and lose nothing.
>
> Even if someone came along and bought the rights to the name, it still
> doesn't buy much; we can just change the name.
>
> Oh wait, we've tried that... I guess if someone bought the name we
> really would be hosed! ;P
Hmm.. maybe this should be added to the FAQ... "In fact, PostgreSQL is so
impervious to corporate take-over, we even have 2 names (postgresql and
postgres) that they would have to buy rights too in order to force a name
change. And even then we have a backup name (postgre)!!"
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} Postgre
Robert Treat wrote: > On Friday 25 January 2008 01:57, Decibel! wrote: > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:15PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > On 1/20/2008 8:45 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote: > > > >Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a > > > >fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other > > > >developers. > > > > > > As has been said many times before, buying Postgres is virtually > > > impossible because the copyright isn't held by a single entity. So in > > > the Postgres case, this threat doesn't exist. > > > > Not only that, but even if someone did buy the copyright, it doesn't buy > > them anything because everything is currently under BSD. You could > > instantly fork the code and lose nothing. > > > > Even if someone came along and bought the rights to the name, it still > > doesn't buy much; we can just change the name. > > > > Oh wait, we've tried that... I guess if someone bought the name we > > really would be hosed! ;P > > Hmm.. maybe this should be added to the FAQ... "In fact, PostgreSQL is so > impervious to corporate take-over, we even have 2 names (postgresql and > postgres) that they would have to buy rights too in order to force a name > change. And even then we have a backup name (postgre)!!" "Postgre --- Our Backup" :-) -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
the name itself of the list: pgsql 2008/1/29, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>: > Robert Treat wrote: > > On Friday 25 January 2008 01:57, Decibel! wrote: > > > On Thu, Jan 24, 2008 at 01:44:15PM -0500, Jan Wieck wrote: > > > > On 1/20/2008 8:45 PM, Santiago Zarate wrote: > > > > >Like: If anyone buys and the licence changes... i would start a > > > > >fork... pick up the free code and start a new branch along with other > > > > >developers. > > > > > > > > As has been said many times before, buying Postgres is virtually > > > > impossible because the copyright isn't held by a single entity. So in > > > > the Postgres case, this threat doesn't exist. > > > > > > Not only that, but even if someone did buy the copyright, it doesn't buy > > > them anything because everything is currently under BSD. You could > > > instantly fork the code and lose nothing. > > > > > > Even if someone came along and bought the rights to the name, it still > > > doesn't buy much; we can just change the name. > > > > > > Oh wait, we've tried that... I guess if someone bought the name we > > > really would be hosed! ;P > > > > Hmm.. maybe this should be added to the FAQ... "In fact, PostgreSQL is so > > impervious to corporate take-over, we even have 2 names (postgresql and > > postgres) that they would have to buy rights too in order to force a name > > change. And even then we have a backup name (postgre)!!" > > "Postgre --- Our Backup" :-) > > -- > Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us > EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com > > + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + >