MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases [LWN.net]

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 28, 2003 0:37 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544)
Parent article: MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Is MySQL AB the greatest Free Software company or what?

All code released under the GNU GPL.
All docs released under the GNU FDL.
Donated $25,000 to the FSF last year.
They are a fully paid-up Patron of the FSF with the logo on their front page. (http://patron.fsf.org/2003-patrons.html)
David Axmark gave testimony against software patents at the European Parliment.

Well, that's my future database decisions made.

...and their business is going so well that they've doubled their staff in the last 12 months.

Thanks MySQL AB.

Ciaran O'Riordan

to post comments

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 28, 2003 4:57 UTC (Wed) by darthmdh (guest, #8032) [Link] (1 responses)

> Is MySQL AB the greatest Free Software company or what?

I'm not sure if I'd go that far, but something that always stands out to me about them is the way that they cop a lot of flack from the DB community because they don't do things the old fashioned way, and they tackle these things very maturely. When users and authors of other databases claimed mysql was rubbish because it didn't support transactions, their claims were simply beaten down with the facts, and transaction support was integrated at a later date anyway, though for the right reasons - easing transition from existing SQL databases that used them.

No childish name-calling or rubbishing of other's work like other free SQL communities have done; just sticking with the job at hand, taking criticism for what its worth - a chance to further improve their products, and not making a huge fuss over pointless issues like a name.

Many software development teams can learn a lot from this.

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 30, 2003 22:19 UTC (Fri) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link]

> they cop a lot of flack from the DB community because they don't do things the old fashioned way

So now the Newspeak for "fundamentally correct" and "reliable and efficient" is "old fashioned"? Guess you are friends with the New Economy guys, "we don't need no stinkin' revenue"...

> they tackle these things very maturely

I guess ignoring the issues instead of scaling back the hype is considered mature nowadays...

> users and authors of other databases claimed mysql was rubbish because it didn't support transactions, their claims were simply beaten down with the facts

I guess these facts are the facts that programmers are more likely to procedurally code integrity in the application than to realise they need to learn databases?

> transaction support was integrated at a later date anyway, though for the right reasons - easing transition from existing SQL databases that used them.

So transactions are not important on themselves? I hope I don't depend on any data stored by you...

> not making a huge fuss over pointless issues like a name.

I guess lying by saying you're a SQL DBMS while you're neither SQL nor DBMS is just a pointless issue...

And then people wonder at SCO, Microsoft, Enron, Monica Lewinsky and Florida...

Sorry no, this sucks!

Posted May 28, 2003 8:07 UTC (Wed) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link] (6 responses)

This is a major step backwards for SAP DB.

There are two major problems with this change:

The license; SAP DB is currently licened under the GPL for the DBMS server and LGPL for the client libs, when it gets mysql branded the client libs are going to be GPL which means that the current users who do not license their applications under GPL are fucked.
The name; MySQL is still known for being "slightly better than a text file" for datastorage, even with innodb it's still just a limited toy, compared to SAP DB, managers and customers know this so it's going to be harder to sell a solution based on "mysql enterprise" in stead of SAP DB.

There are many of the current users of SAP DB that are angry and disappointed by this and we might end up having to fork the current SAP DB sources to keep the LGPL'ed client lib available.

All in all this is not good news, it's removing freedom (LGPL->GPL) from the current users who have helped debug and advocate the current SAP DB product, it's entirely legal, but those of us who feel we have a non-code stake in SAP DB feels it's unfair to remove the freedom we currently have to use the DBMS from non-GPL applications.

Why ?

Posted May 28, 2003 9:04 UTC (Wed) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link] (5 responses)

Huh. Why the hell client libs will become GPL ??? MySQL client libs was LGPLed for a long time and last time I've checked (MySQL 4.1.0-alpha) they were still LGPLed. If they like to use Embedded MySQL it's other story, of course but I can hardly call Embedded MySQL "client libs".

"Slightly better than a text file" perception is just name calling IMNSHO and hardly reason to fork.

Why ?

Posted May 28, 2003 14:41 UTC (Wed) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link] (1 responses)

"Slightly better than a text file" perception is just name calling

Indeed. MySQL's minimalist approach has resulted in a product with higher performance and fewer bugs than is typical of modern software products, which is probably why they have millions of users.

Why ?

Posted May 30, 2003 22:09 UTC (Fri) by leandro (guest, #1460) [Link]

> MySQL's minimalist approach

You may call it minimalist. I call it insufficient.

> approach has resulted in a product with higher performance

Yes, if you ignore the performance hint and added risks of doing consistency in the application instead of the database.

> and fewer bugs

Nice answer to complexity: transfer it to someone else! So if you don't want to risk bugs in the DBMS, deny functionality so that it has to implemented, bugs and all, in the application.

> than is typical of modern software products

PostgreSQL is neither new nor buggy. Nor are SAPdb, Interbase or IBM DB2. What are you comparing to, Oracle or MS SQL Server?

LGPL -> GPL = less freedom

Posted May 28, 2003 15:02 UTC (Wed) by dion (guest, #2764) [Link] (2 responses)

You ask why mysql wants to license the client libs under GPL, well that's easy, it's so they can sell the people who write non-free software a commercial license, go read:

Any way you cut it this is a move that will only hurt the current users of SAP DB.

LGPL, "Lesser", since it does less to protect our freedom

Posted May 28, 2003 18:11 UTC (Wed) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

The MySQL AB approach gives companies two choices:
1) Release their software as Free Software
2) Keep the code proprietary and help finance a good free software company

If a company wants to use MySQL without contributing either code or cash, they are just a parasite.

Ciaran O'Riordan

LGPL -> GPL = less freedom

Posted May 29, 2003 16:46 UTC (Thu) by khim (subscriber, #9252) [Link]

Looks like MySQL AB silently changed licensing terms. They kept COPYING.LIB in distribution and changelog only mentions one change in licensing:

Changes in release 3.23.19
--------------------------

   * Changed copyright for all files to `GPL' for the server code and
     utilities and to LGPL for the client libraries.

but libmysql 4+ actually refers not to LGPL but to GPL now. Oops.

MySQL AB and SAP AG Partner to Build New Open Source Databases

Posted May 28, 2003 9:18 UTC (Wed) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

Definitively should be a role model for other free software companies. What other
exist? Red Hat? I think they would qualify, at least their code is GPLd but
somehow they seem to suffer a bit from the NIH syndrome sometimes.