The ongoing MySQL campaign

Posted Jan 3, 2010 20:42 UTC (Sun) by hingo (guest, #14792)
In reply to: The ongoing MySQL campaign by jjs
Parent article: The ongoing MySQL campaign

Yes I do know them. I used to sell MySQL around Europe and left a few weeks after the Oracle acquisition. Most of the time I was involved with customers migrating from Oracle to MySQL to save costs. Most of these efforts of course stopped immediately when the acquisition was announced. (Some still make sense to proceed because of MySQL being technically superior for that particular use case.) I have been in touch with some of them during the EU investigation. They have also submitted their own papers to the EU. But since they are also big Oracle customers, they can't really speak about it in public can they? So you don't have to like me for it, but yes, my personal motivation in this is to do a favor to my European MySQL customers.

Of course, even if I know many of them, there are even more that I don't know personally, and the EU is aware of them too.

Note: I worked in the telecom industry, so my heavy "Oracle exposure" is probably not representative of the world as a whole. (For instance, Microsoft SQL Server doesn't exist here as this is a Linux/Solaris only world.)

to post comments

The ongoing MySQL campaign

Posted Jan 4, 2010 4:37 UTC (Mon) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link] (14 responses)

1. How many were moving from Oracle to GPL MySQL? And, since the GPL version is and always will be around, and Monty (and many others can support), why did they stop the migration?

2. If they are moving to proprietary MySQL - see my comment. This is a known risk with proprietary software. If they didn't factor in they company could go out of business / discontinue the product, that's their problem for not being good businessmen.

3. How many are in the SW distribution business? If they merely use the software, they can use the GPL version with no restrictions. GPL only affects distribution.

4. They submitted their own papers - that's good, because THEY'RE the ones affected. You and Monty are NOT speaking for them, CANNOT speak for them (because they are NOT your customers).

5. Regarding funding. I know how you used to fund MySQL development. That's not the only model. Many others are funded differently (to include Linux by various entities funding development of a GPL product). Just because something worked in the past is no reason for the government to guarantee to you it will work in the future.

6. Read the top of this article. Monty presents this as an Open Source issue. EVERYTHING you have presented has to do with the proprietary version of MySQL. Nothing against that, but it is NOT an Open Source issue - you are misrepresenting it (or you're not being truthful here), and as such, I will now have to discount EVERYTHING you present (because of your known misrepresentation - if I can't trust your word on one thing, why should I trust it on another thing?).

Again, if you want to sell proprietary products, fine. But, having sold the company, don't expect or demand EU to GIVE you the company/business back for nothing. And don't represent your desire to have a proprietary business as being an "Open Source" issue.

The ongoing MySQL campaign

Posted Jan 4, 2010 7:49 UTC (Mon) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (13 responses)

Hi. I'm starting to get the feeling that this is going in circles now, but I'll take your questions for the honest questions they are, and answer them best I can:

1. All end users move to GPL MySQL (also MySQL Enterprise is GPL, even if the software is not available "for free"). I guess a majority were OEM customers, but some were end users. The reason they canceled those migrations is twofold: 1) They don't see any guarantees that MySQL actually will be forked. Do you know of anyone who is stepping up to the plate? MP has not released anything yet, so don't count on us. Further, it is not in our plans to provide 24/7 support, this is stated clearly on our website. And of course the fact that a GPLv2 only fork is a bit restricted in what it can actually do for them, even if successful. 2) It is not about the code or the license. There needs to be a large support organization, active sales organization, etc... For instance, as great as PostgreSQL is as a piece of software, at least in Europe it is commonly thought that you simply cannot buy support for it, anywhere. (The 2 large companies I know that use PostgreSQL in Finland, both have in-house expertise to support it, one employs a core developer.) The main point is that just because some code is available on the internet, doesn't mean that it is being maintained or is useful. It is not sufficient that organizations would actually migrate from Oracle to an Open Source solution. Many of the customers also were looking at what is called "a dual vendor procurement strategy", where you expect to get cheaper prices from both vendors due to competing them against each other. But if both databases are owned by the same vendor, well then it's not a dual vendor strategy.

2. True. On the other hand in their risk assessment they are also right in assuming that the government will regulate mergers that are anti-competitive. For instance, I don't think anyone assumes that Oracle would be allowed to buy away Sybase (or Microsoft or IBM), so customers expect to be "safe" from that threat. Yet, MySQL by most measures has a much bigger market share than Sybase, and is a bigger Oracle competitor than Sybase.

3. For end users, the software is distributed to them. If they cannot buy software that supports MySQL, they cannot use MySQL.

4. Yes. I'm still happy I can support them in the same cause.

5. Yes I know, I've written a book about Open Source business models. We are not asking the government to guarantee anything for us. We have our own business model, this is about MySQL. But the counter argument to what you are saying is that why should the government think that some proposed model will save MySQL rather than trusting that the model which historically actually was used and was successful, could continue to be successful. Sure, MySQL possibly could be developed like Linux is developed. (But to even enable that, the license regime would have to be changed, so today it's not possible.) But that statement is to some extent "wishful thinking". Even in the best case, it will take time for the new system to build up and organize itself. Even just re-recreating MySQL Ab from scratch using the old and proven business models would take years. Customers and the EU of course are concerned about that part - even in the best case there would be reduced competition for many years. It is completely appropriate to be more conservative and say, "if it isn't broken, don't mess with it".

6. In other comments I've explained that I do believe, and many other MySQL'rs do believe, that Oracle getting their hands on MySQL is a threat to MySQL *as a whole*. The discussion on the web, such as here, is mostly focused on licenses and forking, but I see the issues as more interrelated than that.

7. Just to clarify again, Monty Program is not in the business of selling proprietary products. On our website we are committed to the Hacking Business Model, which commits us to FOSS. (And this is unlike Sun/MySQL, actually.)

The ongoing MySQL campaign

Posted Jan 4, 2010 8:48 UTC (Mon) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link] (12 responses)

1. If it's GPL, they can hire whoever they want (IBM probably would be willing to support for sufficient money). The beauty of GPL is you can get support from anyone - you're not limited to a single company. They can even compete support contracts for the same code base (better than your dual-vender option - because with proprietary the only support you can get is from the company with the source code). How many use Apache, which doesn't have a single company behind it? How many use Linux? How many use Samba? I can go on and on - support options INCREASE under open source, not decrease.

2. If you're supporting GPL, why the insistence on Apache license? I'm sorry, but everything you say above that you want to do can be done with GPL. If they're moving to the GPL codebase, the fact the code is GPL'd doesn't create a problem. Unless you're not being honest. You're stating it's the model that was successful in the past, but you state you're not interested in using it, nor have you identified anyone who is. Your proposed solution is just as "pie in the sky" as keeping it GPL and forking. Unless you're planning to fork over the cash, buy MySQL, and recreate MySQL AB.

3. I've seen the public Oracle commitments to GPL'd MySQL. Made to the EU. Spell out why those don't work for companies moving to the GPL'd version of MySQL (which you claim the companies are moving to).

4. I'll state again - why should Oracle be forced to GIVE AWAY the product? Standard anti-trust would be for them to sell the product. You're insisting on a punishment that's not been supported in the past. Insist they sell it - fine. but why the give-away, unless you're looking to get the product for free?

Why do we keep going in circles? Because you keep insisting it's about Open Source, yet only bringing up issues with the Proprietary model. Sorry, but until you admit the issue is proprietary model, we'll continue to look askance at your statements. Again, I have nothing per se against proprietary software, if that's what you want to talk about, admit it. Don't try and claim it's an "open source problem" when it's not.

Also, I used to do Open Source software support - specifically advising businesses on risks/options - again with Open Source (GPL'd in this case) the options for support are fully open - they can contract with anyone they want, from a major company to "joe the coder" - unlike proprietary.

The ongoing MySQL campaign

Posted Jan 5, 2010 8:36 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (11 responses)

Hi

It seems you are not asking any new questions anymore, rather just saying you think Monty (or me?) is a liar. Since there is no new information coming out here, I guess this is a good place to stop this thread.

Reading this reminded me of the one mandatory course in psychology that I had in high school. The teacher was one of the best in that school. Here's her definition of the Freudian school of psychology:

You go to a psychiatrist who is of the Freudian school.
Psychiatrist: All of your problems are due to the fact that you want to have sex with your mother!
You: I certainly don't want to have sex with my mother!
Psychiatrist: Ah, you say you don't want to have sex with your mother, but I know that at least subconsciously you do want to have sex with your mother.
You realize you need to talk to a psychiatrist who is not of the Freudian school. (The lesson is supposed to illustrate why Freud's psychology is not considered real science.)

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 12:12 UTC (Tue) by farnz (subscriber, #17727) [Link] (10 responses)

It seems to me, upon reading the entire thread between you and jjs, that jjs is asking why the GPL isn't good enough for Open Source MySQL users.

You're answering that it's not good enough for proprietary MySQL users, and you believe that if they're not kept happy, Open Source MySQL will die.

The response is that jjs disagrees about Open Source MySQL depending on the proprietary users, and feels that a relicensing of MySQL to GPLv2 or any later version, rather than the current GPLv2 only would fix the concerns for Open Source MySQL users.

You disagree with this, saying that it needs to be relicensed to something more liberal (e.g. MIT) if Open Source MySQL is to survive under Oracle's ownership, but your reasoning appears to be entirely based around the proprietary MySQL users.

Is that a fair summary of the situation? If not, where am I going wrong?

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 13:42 UTC (Tue) by anselm (subscriber, #2796) [Link]

The problem is really that a GPLed MySQL with the copyrights held by Oracle is bad for Monty, who wants to make a living selling proprietary versions of the MySQL server to paying customers. To do that, obviously he would much rather have a GPLed MySQL with the copyrights held by his own company (like before he sold MySQL AB to Sun) that he can dual-license, or, failing that, a MySQL under a BSD-like license that doesn't force him to publish source code.

The GPL version of MySQL is used by a very large number of people and is unlikely to go away anytime soon, no matter what Sun, Oracle, or the EU do. As far as proprietary users of MySQL are concerned, people who are not interested in hacking on the MySQL server itself can write all the proprietary MySQL-using software they care for by using a non-GPL version of the MySQL client library -- either one they come up with themselves or else one that may be available from Sun under the LGPL under the auspices of OpenOffice.org, as alluded to elsewhere in this discussion.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 19:02 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (6 responses)

It is a good summary.

I would add that the incompatibility with any GPLv3 software is a problem on the open source side directly. It's just another example of how MySQL copyrights and licensing have on purpose been designed such that the owner does have the control and can do bad things if it wants to.

During these months I've heard many proposals on how the issue could be resolved. For instance one person said MySQL should stay GPL but then you could add a lot of exceptions to the GPL to address the same issue (similar to Linux). As long as people would at least understand what the problem is, I don't have a strong opinion on that, I'm an engineer so if you ask me I just pick one of the well known licenses.

And finally it is worth re-iterating that the EU isn't as concerned about the MySQL license as the Open Source community is (in threads like this). Regardless of license they seem to be concerned about the MySQL business and organization itself. This is because they are interested in competition, and software that exists on the internet does not yet mean there is any competition.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 19:46 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (3 responses)

people keep referring to the "Linux exception" to the GPL.

as far as Linus is concerned, it's not an exception, it's just pointing out something that was true anyway. Namely that ff you use published interfaces to something that doesn't make your code a derivative of the code you are interfacing with, and therefor the GPL cannot possibly apply.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 21:29 UTC (Tue) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link] (2 responses)

We are talking about:

NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

I've most often heard to this thing referred as "user space exception". Given that it is outside the license text, I guess you may equally well argue that it is not an exception but a clarification.

The main point in our discussion is that a similar "thing" does not exist in the GPL version of MySQL, so applications running on top of MySQL are not analogous to applications running on Linux.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 21:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (1 responses)

that is exactly what I was referring to as well.

Linus and others don't view that as a change to the license, just pointing out something that should have been obvious to begin with. Userspace apps are not a derivative of the kernel.

And as others have pointed out in this thread, you don't need to have a GPL application to connect to a GPL MySQL server, you just need a client library that's LGPL or BSD and then you can have your proprietary code connect to a GPL server. IFF you change the internals of the server, then you need to worry about the GPL, but not if you just access it.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 16:53 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Possibly so. The problem is that for the last decade MySQL Ab and then Sun would push the interpretation of the GPL in their favor. So for instance, they might say to a customer that if you ship an application together with MySQL server, and the application is also using MySQL specific SQL, it is a derivative of MySQL. I know, because I was one of them. You may not agree that that is the right way to interpret the GPL, but on the other hand that is not yet a guarantee that Oracle as the new owner of MySQL wouldn't sue such users. Given how MySQL Ab historically has interpreted its own copyright, it would be nice to have clarity on the topic, otherwise people can still be scared away from using MySQL, regardless of what the right interpretation is.

The other thing is that MySQL is used in various ways: as a client server, fully embedded in the application process (libmysqld), and as a framework for proprietary storage engines (which are .so libraries to MySQL server). The question is, do you want to solve the problem for all of those different MySQL customers, or just the client-server scenario.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 5:40 UTC (Wed) by mikov (guest, #33179) [Link] (1 responses)

You keep trying to present clear information, but the truth is most people haven't really bothered to study the situation in detail (or read Monty's blog) and have made their conclusions in advance:
* Monty personally got the whole billion from the sale of MySQL. Now he wants more, the greedy bastard!
* He wants to buy MySQL back on the cheap in order to continue to rob the open source movement
* Closed-source software is evil and must die, as well as everybody who profits from it.
* Who needs MySQL anyway?

Perhaps I am very cynical, but I suspect that what bugs most people is the impression they got that Monty personally sold MySQL and received the fat check. Perhaps you guys should publicize more that it wasn't his decision and, as you noted elsewhere, he got only about 5%.

For me the crux of the matter is very simple: Oracle should not be allowed to buy a major competitor to their database. Yes, MySQL is definitely such a competitor, and people who do not see that are kidding themselves (if not literally today, but in a few years). This definitely will decrease competition, and definitely will affect ant GPL-licensed fork of MySQL. (Why kid ourselves, MySQL was so successful, despite being technically inferior to some alternatives, precisely because of its dual-license model).

This has nothing to do with Monty.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 7:57 UTC (Wed) by sitaram (guest, #5959) [Link]

I wasn't going to get into this thread again, but now I have to...

> You keep trying to present clear information, but the truth is most people haven't really bothered to study the situation in detail (or read Monty's blog) and have made their conclusions in advance:

[snip]

> Perhaps I am very cynical, but I suspect that what bugs most people is the impression they got that Monty personally sold MySQL and received the fat check. Perhaps you guys should publicize more that it wasn't his decision and, as you noted elsewhere, he got only about 5%.

What bugs most people is the mis-representation. Even MPAB folk will agree that this is basically about protecting the current users of the proprietary version, and yet Monty keeps saying that the OSS world is affected.

> For me the crux of the matter is very simple: Oracle should not be allowed to buy a major competitor to their database. Yes, MySQL is definitely such a competitor, and people who do not see that are kidding themselves (if not literally today, but in a few years). This definitely will decrease competition, and definitely will affect ant GPL-licensed fork of MySQL. (Why kid ourselves, MySQL was so successful, despite being technically inferior to some alternatives, precisely because of its dual-license model).

"Technically inferior" coupled with "successful" usually means "good marketing/PR". However, in this case, it was also because they used the GPL as a weapon, which is easy when you combine GPL with copyright assignment and a single *commercial* owner (aka, not like ASF, FSF, etc).

Either way, I don't see a need for the open source community to help perpetuate that state of affairs, and I definitely don't see how Oracle can harm the open source version. I still have an open question on that: show me one purely open source project that is currently using MySQL, and cannot switch to something else for *technical* reasons, that would be badly affected by this purchase, and explain how precisely it would be affected.

> This has nothing to do with Monty.

This has *everything* to do with him, sadly, but I'm not in a name-calling mood today. Or at least not to *repeat* what I have already said.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 5, 2010 22:17 UTC (Tue) by jjs (guest, #10315) [Link] (1 responses)

Close. I make no comments on the relicensing to GPL2+ or GPL3. GPL2 works for me, but I'd need to analyze the issues there more.

However, I trust (based on Red Hat, IBM, Novell/Suse, Canonical, Mozilla, Xorg, etc) that Open Source does NOT depend on proprietary. Therefore, making the argument that the need to keep a proprietary version of MySQL out there to "save" the GPL version is wrong.

Also, if the Open Source model of development depends on a proprietary version, that's saying Open Source can't work. yet, Monty's current company is supposedly based on total Open Source. Either F/LOSS works and can exist without proprietary, or Red Hat should be going out of business.

Even with that, there is plenty of competition in the DB world - MySQL will live on (GPL guarantees that), and if companies bet on the proprietary version, they took a risk.

However, it does illustrate the dangers of having a single company control a GPL/Open Source project - you don't build the community that can help rescue or fork the project, because (IMO) one entity (the company) has special rights, and people don't like giving someone else rights they don't have.

An attempt to summarize this thread, so that we can stop going round in circles.

Posted Jan 6, 2010 16:58 UTC (Wed) by hingo (guest, #14792) [Link]

Hi. I'm kind of done with this thread, but I just wanted to say I fully agree with your last paragraph. I was also often critizising that state of affairs when I was inside MySQL/Sun. (Not the dual licensing itself, but lack of strong community, direction to make MySQL ever more closed source, etc...) Monty has a publicly documented history of critizing the same.