Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net) [LWN.net]

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 18, 2006 20:41 UTC (Sat) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

My understanding has been that if I want to use Sleepycat "Berkeley DB" as part of a product which is not "freely redistributable", I need to buy a license from Sleepycat. If I am going to make a non freely redistributable product using MySQL which in turn is using Berkeley DB, then I expect either I or MySQL need to buy a corresponding license from Sleepycat. It seems to me the same situation will now exist with Oracle replacing Sleepycat. The fact that there has existed, and continues to exist, a way to use MySQL and/or Berkeley DB to build freely redistributable applications without paying MySQL or Sleepycat or (now) Oracle seems irrelevant to me as far as "what Oracle is buying". Sleepycat was able to preclude me from using Berkeley DB to build products which are not freely redistributable unless I pay them money, and they were able to do the same to MySQL; now Oracle is able to do what Sleepycat was able to do, and that ability is what Oracle bought.

My opinion is that what MySQL and Sleepycat (and Trolltech) have been doing is trying to leverage the GPL as a way to appear to be somehow working in the spirit of Free Software when what they are doing is antipodal to that spirit, and Oracle is hopefully taking advantage of that chicanery.

Larry

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 19, 2006 1:47 UTC (Sun) by man_ls (subscriber, #15091) [Link]

My opinion is that what MySQL and Sleepycat (and Trolltech) have been doing is trying to leverage the GPL as a way to appear to be somehow working in the spirit of Free Software when what they are doing is antipodal to that spirit, and Oracle is hopefully taking advantage of that chicanery.

This horse has already been beaten to death, but why do you think that? I think that what they are doing is very much in the line of free software; dual (GPL / proprietary) licensing is even accepted by Stallman IIRC.

We (as in "you and me and everyone else") get libre code licensed under the GPL. The publisher also chooses to provide the software under a different proprietary license, if you are willing to pay for it. But if you want to build free software then you just have to publish under the GPL. Why is it antipodal to the spirit of free software? It is precisely what that spirit is about!

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 19, 2006 3:52 UTC (Sun) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

My opinion is that the spirit of Free Software is about believing the software should be free, not simply using the GPL as a flavor of "free for non-commerical use" license to fuel the creation of demand for the non-free version of the software.

Larry

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 19, 2006 5:33 UTC (Sun) by rqosa (subscriber, #24136) [Link]

> the software should be free

The software is free if it's licensed under the GPL. Whether or not it's also available under a different licence doesn't change the fact that it is free.

> the GPL as a flavor of "free for non-commerical use" license

GPLed software is free for commercial use, as long as that commercial use doesn't involve redistributing it under a more restrictive licence.

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 19, 2006 19:50 UTC (Sun) by zblaxell (subscriber, #26385) [Link]

Most of the above is irrelevant to Sleepycat and Berkeley DB, since it's not released under the GPL in the first place.

The license seems to be GPL-compatible, in that the union of Berkeley DB's license and the GPL does not impose additional restrictions that you wouldn't also have with plain GPL. The GPL does not give you the additional privilege of paying license fees in lieu of distributing source code, which is permitted by the Berkeley DB license. Merging Berkeley DB with other dual-licensed code might be a problem.

IANAL, TINLA.

The one nice thing about dual GPL (or GPL-oid) and proprietary licenses is that there will still be GPL code left over when the proprietor implodes. Only one vendor gets the special privilege of selling escapes from GPL license obligations--everyone else gets the code and the GPL, and is forbidden from doing the same as the first vendor. IMHO that's a lot better than many of the alternatives.

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 20, 2006 8:46 UTC (Mon) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Dare I suggest you go to the Free Software Foundation's website and read up on that stuff - especially about the Four Software Freedoms?

I've been involved on the LSB with licencing issues, and it is *very* *easy* for dual-licenced software to be Free. Simply put, "if you can get it under the GPL, it's Free Software".

Indeed, RMS is, I believe, on record as saying he *prefers* software which is dual proprietary/GPL licenced above software that is LGPL - or put differently, he believes Qt is free-er than GTK ...

Cheers,
Wol

Does Oracle Understand What It's Buying? (Technocrat.net)

Posted Feb 20, 2006 18:54 UTC (Mon) by larryr (guest, #4030) [Link]

Indeed, RMS is, I believe, on record as saying he *prefers* software which is dual proprietary/GPL licenced above software that is LGPL

I think actions speak louder than words, so I prefer in the case of RMS to look at the ratio of GNU software which is LGPL to GNU software which is dual proprietary/GPL licensed.

or put differently, he believes Qt is free-er than GTK ...

Software which is GPL is by definition "more Free" than if it was LGPL, and by that definition the versions of Qt which have been released using the GPL are more free than GTK. That says nothing about non-free versions of Qt or the good faith of its proprietor.

Larry

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 18, 2006 22:39 UTC (Sat) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

remember the network computer? or 'appliance' servers? how about java uber alles? larry has tried to deep-dive on one meme after another over the years to try to get oracle out of its narrow category and take on microsoft, whose relative product diversity has chagrined him for years.

you will also recall that all of these previous plans were failures, and frankly this one will be too. oracle's traditional revenues are flat, and like everyone else in the enterprise game, he has been goosing the balance sheet by acquiring other people's revenue streams. ibm is doing this in its software and services divisions too.

rest assured there is no "master plan", larry just has a bug up his rear about open source and some cash on hand to indulge it. you hear talk of jboss and zend being next. okay, tell me how you effectively market oracle's existing java tools, jboss, and php simultaneously? you don't.

the employees of the soon-to-be-acquired may delude themselves with visions of reforming a former software great with their vision and chutzpah. they will find their lunch dates with larry conveniently moved out to 2019 once he has come back down to earth.

as it stands, kudos to mysql for resisting the tawdry come-ons from oacle's m&a crew. a small company like mysql with stellar growth prospects would be mucho retardo to book a ticket on the titanic.

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 18, 2006 23:42 UTC (Sat) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

Nah.
They bought one exact thing: the ability to stop mysqlab on its tracks WRT
selling mysqlab's proprietary DB license. When MySQL AB sells a
proprietary license to mysql, it is selling a proprietary license of
InnoBase's (now Oracle's) InnoDB and a proprietary license of Sleepycat's
(now Oracle's) BDB -- if the client wants to /ever/ use transactions.
Ooops... if Oracle wants to suffocate MySQL AB, it only has to cancel
their proprietary licenses. No more proprietary MySQL, no more money to
pay the developers... One must remeber that while MySQL is Free Software
product (due to its GPL licensing), its development process is not really
open.

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 19, 2006 5:18 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

Indeed, MySQL AB is often, mistakenly, considered to be an "open source company", when they are, instead, an "open source friendly" company.

Their business model rests entirely on conventional proprietary principles, But they have learned to leverage free help and publicity from the FL/OSS community.

When reading articles about "MySQL", it is very important to stop and consider, each time the term "MySQL" is used, whether it should read "MySQL" or "MySQL AB".

Authors almost always use the term "MySQL" in a blanket fashion.

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 19, 2006 5:49 UTC (Sun) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

>> if Oracle wants to suffocate MySQL AB, it only has to cancel
>> their proprietary licenses.

and then tell their shareholders why they won't take a check from innobase's only significant customer

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 19, 2006 6:48 UTC (Sun) by sbergman27 (guest, #10767) [Link]

I doubt that Oracle investors would note such an insignificant matter. But if they did, it would be easy enough to issue some statements that would allow the investors to come to their own conclusion that MySQL AB was a potentially dangerous competitor, endangering their investment.

It's not as though Oracle is a monopolist and has to worry unduely about what they do and say. Not that even real monpolists have to worry unduely, these days, as long as they keep the requisite political contributions paid up. :-(

MySQL AB (stupidly) left themselves open and Oracle seized upon the oportunity to grab MySQL AB by the throat.

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 19, 2006 19:02 UTC (Sun) by b7j0c (subscriber, #27559) [Link]

you are overestimating oracle. they haven't even digested peoplesoft yet. i give most key innobase employees a year before they bolt, after they realize they are trapped in a hopelessly complex bureaucracy trying to support an ego left over from the 90s.

mysql will be just fine, in fact the more acquisitions oracle does, the better it is for mysql.

mysql and salesforce are going to gut oracle over the next decade, it will be fun to watch.

another ill-conceived spasm from oracle

Posted Feb 20, 2006 4:36 UTC (Mon) by dlang (✭ supporter ✭, #313) [Link]

Oracle doesn't need to digest these products. even botching things or killing off the commercial version could cause serious problems for MySQL.

none of these purchases are large enough to damage Oracle if they end up getting thrown away, and if in a year or two, Oracle were to decide that these business groups were not cost effective to maintain they could shut them down (along with all commercial licenses) perhapse with a PR relase about migrating customers to the Oracle database engine.

and remember that most commercial licenses require that you run the current version (within a couple versions) so they could update things in incompatable ways and MySQL qould have to follow for their commercial liceses (even if the opensource community shunned the incompatable fixes the requirement for the commercial licenses would force MySQL to follow them or jump ship to a different data storage engine)

actually, botching things would be even better...

Posted Feb 20, 2006 17:20 UTC (Mon) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link]

If Oracle /really/ wants to fsck up with mysql, they would continue to
update innodb and bdb... with subtle bugs. If they could pull that out
really sneakly, they could damage permanently mysql_ab's image... and
even extend the damage to other Free Software developers.

actually, botching things would be even better...

Posted Feb 23, 2006 10:18 UTC (Thu) by sylware (guest, #35259) [Link]

I think you are sadly right.

The entire open source community should now consider sabotage as a reality.