MySQL and SAP
Nobody can say the same thing about MySQL. This free relational database manager, despite a lingering reputation for lacking the features that "real" database systems have, claims some four million installed systems. MySQL's user community is large and strong, and MySQL AB, the copyright holder for MySQL, is apparently thriving. But MySQL's "fast, reliable, but still a toy" reputation (at least in some circles) is probably not helping MySQL AB win those really big contracts.
So the announcement of a partnership between MySQL AB and SAP makes a fair amount of sense for both sides. Under this deal, MySQL AB gets the right to sell commercial versions of SAP-DB, which will be relicensed entirely under the GPL and renamed. SAP-DB will thus become a product much like the current MySQL offerings, but one aimed at "enterprise" deployments.
MySQL AB gets a new product to sell which has a lengthy large-deployment track record and which should prove easier to market to large companies. SAP's sales force and existing large company customer base should also prove most helpful in that regard. And, of course, MySQL gets to mix together the best of both systems to create "the next-generation MySQL open source enterprise database."
SAP, meanwhile, gets access to a brand with great respect in the free software community. MySQL AB has a proven ability to create an active developer and user community around a free database system; this skill will come to great use in reviving interest in the database formerly known as SAP-DB. More significantly, however, is the fact that MySQL AB has figured out how to sell proprietary licenses to a free software product, pleasing its customers while simultaneously avoiding alienating the developer community. The company's ability to walk that fine line bodes well for SAP-DB's future.
If there is a down side to this deal, it is that the SAP-DB client libraries, which were formerly licensed under the LGPL, will, in the future, only be available under the GPL. That change is crucial to the entire strategy, of course; it is the lever that will force proprietary software vendors to buy a commercial license. But it is a change which will upset users who were making use of the previous LGPL licensing; a look at the sapdb-general mailing list shows a handful of messages from users who are unhappy with the new state of affairs.
Of course, those users have not really lost anything; the current SAP-DB
release cannot and will not be taken away from them. They simply will not
have the same access to future releases. SAP-DB users have the right to
fork the code base and maintain the code independently, and they might just
do so. But it is hard to see a forked SAP-DB attracting a larger community
than SAP-DB has now, especially when the folks over at MySQL appear to be
having all the fun.
Posted May 29, 2003 6:32 UTC (Thu)
by jamesh (guest, #1159)
[Link]
Posted May 29, 2003 9:45 UTC (Thu)
by leandro (guest, #1460)
[Link]
Just like Compaq and Digital, this is a big question. In the older case, the Digital side initially got the technical upper hand, giving hopes to its users; later the Compaq side predominated as suits went the easier route to liquidation and the HP merger. The paralel should be obvious: while none side in this merger can claim to be relational, MySQL isn't even a proper SQL, and barely a DBMS at all. Not only that, its main architects have repeatedly shown they don't grok data, but only programming. So while one can't hope too much, given that SAPdb is only a SQL DBMSs trying to catch up with Oracle -- that is, they try to catch up with something that is not even up to SQL standards, much less relational ones --, yet SAPdb is clearly a full-featured DBMS. One would hope the MySQL people would concentrate in community relations and leave the technical stuff to SAP.
Posted May 29, 2003 15:54 UTC (Thu)
by linuxbox (guest, #6928)
[Link] (3 responses)
And I think unilateral license changes of this type should be viewed with much more critical concern than this summary displays. While good for MySQL AB, I suspect this change is harmful to most users of the software. The claim that MySQL's growth reflects the soundness of this licensing strategy (from the client/consumer viewpoint) is specious--because most commercial usrs of MySQL probably misunderstand the licensing, are in violation, and would not be using it if they realized they must by MySQL licenses. Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software. While the FSF might consider Linux more free in that case, in practice, there would be no mainstream use of Linux under those licensing provisions. The same reasoning applies to GPL licensing of client interfaces for a key infrastructure services like a client/server RDBMS. Even if those licenses are priced affordably today, there is _no_ way to predict the cost of the same licenses in the future. Hence the future value of commercial software linked with MySQL depends on the future behavior and ownership of one company--a company that could be sold, leave business, or change its practices in ways harmful to the users of its software. I for one think of this as a bad-faith move from the commercial stewards of SAPDB.
Posted May 29, 2003 21:22 UTC (Thu)
by komarek (guest, #7295)
[Link]
You're mixing up usage restrictions and copyright. GPL is a copyright, and puts no restrictions on usage. Linux (the kernel) is GPL'd. And the new client libraries will also be GPL'd. Your "imagine" scenario is of course interesting to ponder, but bears no real relation to the MySQL/SAP client libs issue -- MySQL is putting the those client libs under the GPL, not the Microsoft EULA. You may have a point, but you'll have to be more careful if you want to be convincing.
Posted May 30, 2003 1:45 UTC (Fri)
by zone (guest, #3633)
[Link] (1 responses)
Posted Jun 5, 2003 7:53 UTC (Thu)
by khim (subscriber, #9252)
[Link]
Unless I am mistaken, such a fork would not need to be for the entire SAP-DB product -- just the client library. Unless they plan to change the client-server protocol a lot, it shouldn't be a large burden to maintain an LGPL client library.
MySQL and SAP
The big question is, which side will technically predominate?MySQL and SAP
The number of comments questioning the license change is certainly more than a "handful." It's most of the traffic on the SAPDB general list, over the past 2 days.MySQL and SAP - License change
"Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software."MySQL and SAP - License change
"Imagine if Linux were free to use "as is," but required commercial licenses from Linus when you wanted to use it in connection with non-GPL'd software."
MySQL and SAP - License change
You are confusing the issues of using non-free software and bundling non-free software. You are not required to purchase a MySQL license to use non-free software "in connection" with MySQL; the GPL guarantees your right to do that. If you read the MySQL licensing policy, you'll see that you only need a commercial license when you _directly bundle_ MySQL with your non-GPL application, i.e. producing a non-free/semi-free application. You are free to distribute your non-GPL application for use with MySQL, as long as you don't include the MySQL server or a MySQL driver with it.
"While the FSF might consider Linux more free in that case, in practice, there would be no mainstream use of Linux under those licensing provisions."
Actually, the FSF would consider that _less_ free. It wouldn't really be Free if you could only use the software in conjunction with other free software.
Unfortunatelly you are wrong. You can not link mysql client libraries in your application if it's not GPL-licensed - for example PHP: right now PHP includes it's own old version of libmysql and thus not in violation but if you'll link PHP and last version of libmysql from MySQL 4.1.x you'll be in violation of GPL. I do not think it was intent to make PHP unable to use recent versions of libmysql but that's what we have now!
MySQL and SAP - License change