MySQL Reverses Decision On Closed Source

krow writes "I am very happy to be announcing that MySQL will be forgoing close sourcing portions of the MySQL Server. Kaj has the official statement in his blog. No portion of the server will be closed source including backup, encryption, or any storage engines we ship. To quote Kaj 'The encryption and compression backup features will be open source.' This is a change from what was previously posted here on Slashdot. I've posted some additional thoughts on my own blog concerning how we keep open source from becoming crippleware. Word has it that we will also have a panel at this year's OSCON discussing this topic. Contrary to the previous Slashdot discussion, this shows Sun's continued commitment to Open Source."

Re:ZFS next to be open sourced?

[brunascle]

ZFS is open source, using Sun's CDDL license. the problem is that the CDDL isnt compatible with the GPL.

Good day for all

[Uncle Focker]

Good. I'm glad that Sun was able to convince the MySQL staff to not close source any of the codebase. And yes, as was pointed out in the other thread, Sun wasn't the one pushing the close source move they were actually trying to convince them to go the opposite.

Re:The whole thing was pointless anyway

[Rary]

As a small aside, the Slashdot headline of the original article was not entirely accurate.

Actually, that headline and this headline are completely inaccurate, because both mentioned a decision where none had been made.

MySQL had not decided to use a closed source license. They were considering many different licenses, including a closed source license -- but also including the GPL and other open source licenses. No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject.

Re:Good day for all

[Uncle Focker]

MySQL was considering the close sourcing of the enterprise stuff before they were acquired by Sun. After being acquired Sun was pushing that they don't go with the close source route as was confirmed in the previous thread. http://developers.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=525246&cid=23098626 [slashdot.org]

The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO) prior to the acquisition by Sun, so this has nothing to do with Sun. On the contrary, Sun is more likely to influence this decision the other way.

Troll harder next time.

Re:Lol Slashdot is too much

[krow]

Hi!

If anyone in the know had written the original article I doubt they would have put "Sun" in the title. It was pretty much a MySQL decision all along. The original article was not completely wrong, but it certainly was wrong on the Sun part.

Cheers,
      -Brian

I don't see any problem with close sourcing

[iamacat]

Just because you release one product as open source doesn't mean that you have to release all you works or future versions under the same license. Just as long as you don't mislead anyone about old and new license terms and do not try to harass developers [jroller.com] who have forked off your old version and are possibly duplicating your closed source extensions.

Re:Great to see? Want to make a bet?

[njcoder]

Click the link and read more

* MySQL Server is and will always remain fully functional and open source,
        * so will the MySQL Connectors, and
        * so will the main storage engines we ship.

In addition:

        * MySQL 6.0â(TM)s pending backup functionality will be open source,
        * the MyISAM driver for MySQL Backup will be open source, and
        * the encryption and compression backup features will be open source,

where the last item is a change of direction from what we were considering before.

The change comes from MySQL now being part of Sun Microsystems. Our initial plans were made for a company considering an IPO, but made less sense in the context of Sun, a large company with a whole family of complementary open source software and hardware products.

Re:ZFS next to be open sourced?

[Kjella]

I'm sure you could write a patch to get it in the kernel without FUSE, you just couldn't distribute it.

Actually, nothing could stop you distributing just the patch under the CDDL. You definately couldn't ship binaries, and I'm not sure if they could go together since it's somewhat beyond "mere aggregation". The more likely problem is that you'd need to hook fairly deep into the kernel's subsystems and so keeping a set of zfs-pathces current with each kernel release would be no non-trivial job.

Re:I don't see any problem with close sourcing

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because you release one product as open source doesn't mean that you have to release all you works or future versions under the same license.

However, when your CEO says that [Open Source is] not a cheap complement to throw to the community in order to drive sales of "the real value" [news.com] you will be expected to release all your works as open source.

Re:The whole thing was pointless anyway

[Jherek Carnelian]

No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject.

Baloney. The former CEO of MySQL even posted otherwise right here on slashdot:

The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO)... [slashdot.org]

The decision was made and then was reversed.

Re:The whole thing was pointless anyway

[njcoder]

No decision had been made. This announcement is the first actual decision on the subject.

Baloney. The former CEO of MySQL even posted otherwise right here on slashdot:

The business decision on this was made by MySQL AB (by me as the then CEO)... [slashdot.org]

The decision was made and then was reversed.

Read your own link:

Additionally we will develop high-end add-ons (such as encryption, native storage engine-specific drivers) that we will deliver to customers in the MySQL Enterprise product only. We have not yet decided under what licence we will release those add-ons (GPL, some other FOSS licence, and/or commercial)

Re:Now change the ZFS license SUN

[Anonymous Coward]

This is why it's important to assign joint copyright to an organization that can make changes to adapt to future needs.

Re:Alternate interpretation of events...

[this great guy]

"Company forced to give up revenue stream due to open-source fanatics [...]"

Actually Sun CEO Jonathan Schwartz has explained numerous times in his blog that opensourcing your products increases your revenue stream in the long term. I invite you to read in particular this 2-day old post [sun.com] where he answers the FAQ "Why don't you just stop giving your software away?" and gives precisely the example of MySQL.

Re:Now change the ZFS license SUN

[larry bagina]

Sun doesn't want the GPL anywhere near ZFS -- and for good reason. The GPL ought to be called the "Me Me Me PL". Let's say Sun did release ZFS under the GPL and it's adopted into Linux. Sun is shut out from any changes unless they release SunOS under the GPL as well. With the CDDL, anyone can use the code (without giving up rights to their own code) and Sun gets back any improvements (without affecting their other code). It's like the LGPL, but with much better granularity.

We see this attitude a lot with BSD/GPL conflicts. When BSD code is relicensed as GPL, the original code is denied access to any changes. Think about that for a minute. "We want you to share your code. So we won't share our changes to your code with you." Free as in "free room and board at gitmo".