Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Sun Microsystems Databases Programming Software IT

Sun Announces New MySQL, Michael Widenius Forks 306

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the this-cracks-me-up dept.
viktor.91 writes "Sun Microsystems announced three new MySQL products: MySQL 5.4, MySQL Cluster 7.0 and MySQL Enterprise Partner Program for 'Remote DBA' service providers." which showed up in the firehose today next to Glyn Moody's submission where he writes "Michael Widenius, founder and original developer of MySQL, says that most of the leading coders for that project have either left Sun or will be leaving in the wake of Oracle's takeover. To ensure MySQL's survival, he wants to fork from the official version — using his company Monty Program Ab to create what he calls a MySQL "Fedora" project. This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Sun Announces New MySQL, Michael Widenius Forks

Comments Filter:
  • It depends (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raffe (28595) * on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:34AM (#27686347) Journal

    It depends on the license of the software. Always.

    • by tolan-b (230077)

      Well, with FOSS it doesn't. It depends on whether the maintainers require copyright assignment.

      In any case, the authors own the code (unless they reassign the copyright) and everyone else can do whatever they want with it provided they comply with the license.

      The question in the summary is a bit stupid IMHO.

      • Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)

        by digitalunity (19107) <digitalunityNO@SPAMyahoo.com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:56AM (#27686643) Homepage

        Well, even if the maintainers have the copyrights, that only means future versions can be closed source. They can't terminate the already-outstanding licenses without a breach of terms. They also own the trademarks to the MySQL also.

        IMO, Sun lost the hearts and minds of the developers which is where the real value was. The trademarks and copyrights are worthless if the community views MySQL's direction is wrong and moves entirely to a fork.

        • Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)

          by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@gmai ... m minus language> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:12AM (#27686853) Homepage Journal

          They can't terminate the already-outstanding licenses without a breach of terms.

          On the flip side, the forking company can't use the same business model as MySQL AB. Since MySQL owned the copyrights, they could see non-GPLed versions of the software under terms that were more palatable to corporations. To a certain degree, it served their purposes to fuel GPL fears.

          Now that the forking company is 100% bound by the GPL, they must attempt to undo any misplaced fears about the GPL and seek to convince companies that what they really want is a support licene, additional tools, or trained consultants.

          • Re:It depends (Score:4, Insightful)

            by jedidiah (1196) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:23AM (#27687031) Homepage

            Most companies don't need a more "palatable" license for an RDBMS. They typically
            use it as a product, not something to build a product from. This is the key area
            where the GPL can be a problem for a corporate entity. Most of Oracle's database
            (or apps) customers don't have any reason to be concerned about their RDBMS having
            a copyleft license.

            They want assurance that their data will be protected and their operations won't suffer outtages.

            • Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)

              by TheRaven64 (641858) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:49AM (#27687415) Journal
              What do you think most companies do with an RDBMS if they are not building software on top of it? Most either build in-house software on top of it, or license third-party software to run on top of it. In both of these situations the license is important. There's a reason MySQL AB made so much money selling licenses that let people avoid the GPL.
              • Re:It depends (Score:5, Informative)

                by rackserverdeals (1503561) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:23AM (#27687957) Homepage Journal

                What do you think most companies do with an RDBMS if they are not building software on top of it?

                Most people don't build software on top of an rdbms, they build software that uses and rdbms as a backend data store.

                • Re:It depends (Score:5, Interesting)

                  by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross.yahoo@ca> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @11:07AM (#27688709)

                  And here is the crux of the argument and why MySQL is doomed...

                  You see if you have a product that binds to MySQL you will have to GPL your product. Why? Simple...

                  1) All (most?) drivers are GPL'd.
                  2) The MySQL notation uses a specific parameter delimintator that is specific to MySQL. And a 4 year old court decision said that there is no binding between application and RDMS if the same code can be used on other databases. With the special notation, it is not possible and hence constitutes a GPL binding.

                  Personally I see MySQL falling off to the way side...

                  • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                    by x2A (858210)

                    "a 4 year old court decision said that there is no binding between application and RDMS if the same code can be used on other databases. With the special notation, it is not possible and hence constitutes a GPL binding"

                    If your wording of the court case is accurate and complete (enough) - no it's doesn't mean that. If the court case has ruled on a situation where there is 'no binding', then that court case will only apply to other cases where there is similarly 'no binding'. Reversing a condition doesn't nec

                    • Re:It depends (Score:4, Informative)

                      by SerpentMage (13390) <ChristianHGross.yahoo@ca> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @12:33PM (#27690421)

                      The case related to a company who used ODBC and whether or not they binded to MySQL. It was not the NuSphere case, but one that used ODBC and MySQL.

                      The question was if your application used ODBC and MySQL was it binding in the GPL sense?

                      The answer was in the fact whether or not the application could function with another database. At the time the result was that MySQL lost the case since the application could function with another database.

                      It was around that time MySQL GPL'd all drivers, and changed their syntax so that it would only work on their servers. That way it is a GPL binding as per the court case.

              • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

                you completelly ignore how a client talks to a RDBMS. here's how it works:

                it works just like a web server (*). no, really.

                a client connects to a tcp/ip port, sends a bunch of SQL satements and reads the answer.

                if you know the protocol, you can interface with oracle, mySQL, sybase, whatever without touching oracle's code, which means oracle's license is irrelevant if all you want is to build a client app.

                * this is a gross oversimplification, i know. sorry. but it was better than use a car metaphor, right ?

                • Re:It depends (Score:4, Insightful)

                  by vux984 (928602) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:52AM (#27688429)

                  if you know the protocol, you can interface with oracle, mySQL, sybase, whatever without touching oracle's code, which means oracle's license is irrelevant if all you want is to build a client app.

                  Until you want to sell the client app.

            • Re:It depends (Score:5, Interesting)

              by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman@gmai ... m minus language> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:50AM (#27687429) Homepage Journal

              Sounds like you haven't been following MySQL AB very closely. Their interpretation of the license was that any time you paired a MySQL database with an application, you needed a MySQL commercial license. Only if the application supported but was independent of MySQL would you not need to follow the terms of the license.

              MySQL even tried to reinforce the idea by purchasing all the third party drivers and changing the licenses to GPL instead of LGPL or otherwise.

              While MySQL's licensing info has changed over the years (interestingly not archived by the WayBack Machine...) even their current page on licensing [mysql.com] is designed to steer users toward purchasing a commercial license:

              Q3: As a commercial OEM, ISV or VAR, when should I purchase a commercial license for MySQL software?

              A: OEMs, ISVs and VARs that want the benefits of embedding commercial binaries of MySQL software in their commercial applications but do not want to be subject to the GPL and do not want to release the source code for their proprietary applications should purchase a commercial license from Sun. Purchasing a commercial license means that the GPL does not apply, and a commercial license includes the assurances that distributors typically find in commercial distribution agreements.

              For quite a few legal departments I've worked with, "the GPL does not apply" is magic words to their ears. They will instruct the business to grab the commercial license to get around the restrictions. In addition, there is the MySQL libraries issue I referred to above:

              Q4: What is Sun's dual license model for MySQL software?

              A: Sun makes its MySQL database server and MySQL Client Libraries available under both the GPL and a commercial license. As a result, developers who use or distribute open source applications under the GPL can use the GPL-licensed MySQL software, and OEMs, ISVs and VARs that do not want to combine or distribute the MySQL software with their own commercial software under a GPL license can purchase a commercial license.

              The MySQL forking company is going to have to undo all of the anti-GPL ideas they've been riding, and convince companies that they don't need a commercial license. (Since it's not in the forking company's power to provide one.)

        • Re:It depends (Score:5, Insightful)

          by paulthomas (685756) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:24AM (#27687053) Journal

          Agreed. See x.org for how quickly a community can switch to a fork.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by MrMarket (983874)
          Makes you wonder if Widenius saw the Oracle/Sun [slashdot.org] acquisition coming. I can't see Ellison putting a lot of support behind a competitor to Oracle's DB. If I were the founder and saw that coming, I'd split off a fork ASAP before my baby died on the vine post-acquisition.
          • Re:It depends (Score:4, Informative)

            by Z00L00K (682162) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @10:48AM (#27688367) Homepage

            And also consider that Oracle also has the Sleepycat Berkeley DB engine, which you really have to know where to find to get.

            And they also have the old Digital database engine.

            Their method is to acquire competitors and then slowly decrease development and avoid promoting the products. Then the products can silently die.

            But I wonder if they haven't bitten into something a bit too hard to bite into this time...

      • The question in the summary is a bit stupid IMHO.

        You must be new here.
    • by 0xB00F (655017) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:03AM (#27686735) Homepage Journal

      It depends on the license of the software. Always.

      It also depends on where you live. In Soviet Russia, software owns you.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Exactly. Most OSS projects source files supply a header detailing the Copyright holders and the License it is distributed with. Mostly they grant you a non revocable right/requirement to use, extend and redistribute the code with your modifications added. If you add code, that peace of code is owned by you and is automatically under the parent license. It's the same with mySQL, although their License text is a bit murky, but the FOSS exception basically aims for GPL v2.

      As for the trademark: it lies with Sun
  • by Rary (566291) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:37AM (#27686389)

    This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?

    No one. Or, perhaps, everyone. That's kind of the point, isn't it? It isn't locked into anyone's individual grip.

    • by eldavojohn (898314) * <eldavojohn AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:45AM (#27686475) Journal

      This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?

      No one. Or, perhaps, everyone. That's kind of the point, isn't it? It isn't locked into anyone's individual grip.

      "Open source" is just too broad a term to address this way. You would have to look at individual licenses. On top of that, you have things like Open Office, which is "open source" but clearly controlled by Sun (or Oracle now I guess) [slashdot.org].

      While you claim you can always fork an open source project, it's not always that simple. Especially in massive open source efforts (like Linux) where they have contacts and knowledge that are vital to the project. It isn't possession or control or fiscal ownership but instead a name you've made for yourself as the Father of some project that gives you "ownership" or "rights." And usually the market share of your user base reflects that.

      You'd be surprised how many of your open source solutions are actually controlled and operated by a single entity. And this is great for those products because the entity is usually donating a lot of time and money to it. Should the entity ever drop out, that's when someone can pick up the cross and take it a new direction with everyone helping.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by anss123 (985305)

      No one. Or, perhaps, everyone. That's kind of the point, isn't it? It isn't locked into anyone's individual grip.

      In case of mysql I think they made a living on selling versions without the gpl license. That business model will not work for a gpl fork.

  • It's GPL. (Score:5, Funny)

    by AltGrendel (175092) <ag-slashdot@nOspAM.exit0.us> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:40AM (#27686421) Homepage

    This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?"

    So the answer is yes.

  • It's not the first time. I've seen supposedly open source die a cruel death at the hands of its creators. Anyone remember the Free Internet Chess Servers? The FICS code is still on dark corners of the net, but you'll have a fight on your hands if you want to try to use it, and I believe the guy who claims to own it because he contributed to it used it as the base of the current incarnation of FICS which is actually a paid service. You can't get the source to the server from there anymore.

    So if Oracle are ab

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Burkin (1534829)

      So if Oracle are able to somehow prevent the use of this code, either due to terms of employment of the pricinple devs or by claiming ownership of the code and rescinding the free license, it'll make all these licenses worthless. Oracle has deep pockets. Individual developers don't.

      Unless those principle devs are still working at Oracle they can't do the former, and the latter is only possible on future versions of MySQL so one can fork the last free version of the software and Oracle can't do a damn thing about it.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        Unless those principle devs are still working at Oracle they can't do the former, and the latter is only possible on future versions of MySQL so one can fork the last free version of the software and Oracle can't do a damn thing about it.

        But what would the business model be? Any MySQL fork no longer has the ability to dual license the software since the copyrights have been sold. That's how MySQL AB made money.

        Developers, and their families, can't eat freedom and self righteousness.

    • by Andy Dodd (701) <.ude.llenroc. .ta. .7dta.> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:52AM (#27686557) Homepage

      But what license was the FICS code under? Was it really "open source"?

      There are plenty of licenses that provide for distribution of source but are so restrictive that no one considers them to be "open source".

    • by mrcparker (469158) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:56AM (#27686627)

      FICS has been replaced by chessd: http://chessd.sourceforge.net/index-en.html [sourceforge.net]

    • Isn't this the whole point of a real open source license, rather than just publishing stuff and saying 'go play'? Either you're spouting misinformation, or the GPL et al are completely worthless...
    • Free internet chess server - source GPL'd

      "http://sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?group_id=86389"

      You didn't look very hard ...?

      Once it's GPL it's free forever you cannot close source it ... you can only close source newer versions...

  • .. about "who really owns a commercial open software application".

    The copyright holders owns a commercial open software application. If all the copyright has been assigned to a corporation, then the corporation owns the copyright. This is fact.

    Obviously, if the corporation has licensed other people to use and distribute it (i.e. with the GPL) then non-copyright holders may have some rights too.

    This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Burkin (1534829)

      This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it is entirely legally clear if the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the GPL licensing terms or not, no matter what is said in the license.

      No, they can't. The FSF has already stated that if the public has had the right to use the program under the GPL that it can't be revoked.

      Can the developer of a program who distributed it under the GPL later license it to another party for exclusive use?
      No, because the public already has the right to use the program under the GPL, and this right cannot be withdrawn.

      http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty [fsf.org]

    • by Nursie (632944)

      People have tried it, there have been a couple of cases, though I can't remember the names of the software off the top of my head. Generally goes like this:

      write program,
      releasing a few versions under GPL,
      corporate interest/money arrive
      I'm revoking the GPL, you all have to delete any copies of MY stuff you have

      Now, I know that if a single entity holds the copyrights to the whole thing then they can release it under another license any time they like, and stop producing GPL'd versions, but I don't think they

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by russotto (537200)

      This leads us to the only part of the GPL that I think is in any way legally questionable (IANAL). I'm not sure it is entirely legally clear if the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the GPL licensing terms or not, no matter what is said in the license. (i.e. They could argue that the license is not a binding contract).

      They could argue that, but even if that were to be found to be the case, for any program with significant distribution, I'd think the doctrine of "detrimental reliance" would apply.

    • by squoozer (730327)

      IANAL either but I suspect as they are the copyright holder they can change the licence whenever they want to whatever they want. In fact I believe this happened with the X Server and is one of the things that spawned the X Org that we now use.

      What I don't think that can though is change the licence retrospectively so you would just have to fork from the nightly before the licence change. If you could have retrospective licence changes how would you ever know if the software you were running was valid?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by mabhatter654 (561290)

      they way MySQL and stuff from the GNU/FSF is set up, they require contributors to sign the work over to them. Then the body in charge has ALL the rights and can do what they will. Like when the FSF moved everything to GPL 3, they could do that unilaterally because they had assignment.

      Mozilla also has assignment and releases just what you say under a tri-license, the same code base published 3 times. Two are open source (MIT & LGPL) but the main Firefox branded binary is actually NOT open source. Anybo

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Albanach (527650)

      If the copyright holder is allowed to revoke the license, they could close up any project that they own copyright to without allowing any forks. It would mean a loss of MySQL and OpenOffice.org as free software forever.

      This is taken care of by section 6 of the GPL v2 (though it appears as section 7 in the MySQL documentation for version 5.0 at least.

      • Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, di
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by GauteL (29207)

        You're not really answering my post. The GPL is clear enough on this matter, but it isn't entirely legally clear if the GPL is to be considered a binding contract or not. Thus, my argument can't really be answered by referring to the GPL. The FSF has their opinion on the matter, but the FSF does not make laws.

        This is not a problem at all in the opposite case where a recipient of the code breaks the license, because without the license, the recipient has no rights to the code.

        However, without the license, th

  • ...after the coming litigation.

  • Licenses (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tsotha (720379) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:50AM (#27686525)

    To ensure MySQL's survival, he wants to fork from the official version -- using his company Monty Program Ab to create what he calls a MySQL "Fedora" project. This raises the larger question of who really owns a commercial open software application: the corporate copyright holders, or the community?"

    That's what all the lawyering over the license text is all about. This question is one of the more settled questions in the industry.

  • Get it here (Score:5, Funny)

    by A beautiful mind (821714) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @08:50AM (#27686531)
    Get the improved code here [postgresql.org].
    • I'm not too certain of that. I use the replication built into MySQL (with minimal glue) and I've found it to be extremely easy to setup with a few stock Ubuntu server images. Just doing a brief google search reveals a lot of postgres replication products (Slony/PGCluster/DBBalancer), but they did not seem to have any active development on them in a while. I am not knocking PostGres by any means as I find the different language options for Procedures/Functions and the admin tools to be a huge boon.

  • by Khan (19367) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:03AM (#27686729)

    ...to PostgreSQL. Seriously, I already use it for GpsDrive. Now I just need to convince the Cacti devs to switch over.

  • by squoozer (730327) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:04AM (#27686751)

    As the owner of a software development company I think your would have to be stark raving nuts to open source your main product. It's not that the model can't work it just that if it becomes successful you are pretty much guaranteed to lose control of it at some point.

    If we look at MySQL for example: here's a company that produces half way decent database engine that that make open source. They play the open source game "properly" producing code that a mortal can compile to get a working database. While the company is giving the community what they want everything is hunky dory and there is peace.

    Enter Sun who buy MySQL and suddenly the community isn't happy and it's fork fork fork. Only one of those forks needs to be any good and all of a sudden Suns not bought very much at all. If a company plays nice with the open source community forks are fairly easy but rare. The problem is they hang like a knife (or maybe that should be fork) over the company and if they are unfortunate enough to annoy the community they could eaisly lose control of their product.

    That said I think there are situations where companies can participate in open source. The Linux kernel and Plone being a couple of good examples. Both of those projects are structured very differently to the MySQL situation though as no one company is trying to make a living off the code.

    • by Abcd1234 (188840) on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:17AM (#27686945) Homepage

      If we look at MySQL for example: here's a company that produces half way decent database engine that that make open source. They play the open source game "properly" producing code that a mortal can compile to get a working database. While the company is giving the community what they want everything is hunky dory and there is peace.

      Enter Sun who buy MySQL and suddenly the community isn't happy and it's fork fork fork.

      Congratulations! With your very example you actually managed to disprove your original assertion. See, your original claim was this:

      "As the owner of a software development company I think your would have to be stark raving nuts to open source your main product."

      But, the very first paragraph in that quoted text demonstrates that isn't actually the case. The community was very happy with and supportive of MySQL corporate.

      The problem, as you pointed out, was the purchase by Sun. In that case, the customers didn't feel Sun would necessarily have their interests at heart, and so there was dissatisfaction. This is only increased by the fact that Sun has now been purchased by Oracle, a company that actually markets a product in the same general space (I would argue they aren't actually in the same market, and so MySQL has little to fear, but... people aren't exactly rational).

      So the key to running a company on an open codebase seems simple: keep your customers happy, and don't give them the impression that their interested are being threatened. But, of course, that's a good general rule to follow regardless of the license your code falls under. The only real difference between open and closed source, in this case, is that if the source is closed, you may have achieved vendor lock-in, which gives you more freedom to buttfuck your customers, as they won't have a clear avenue for recourse... but if that's your strategy, well, frankly, fuck you.

    • by Vellmont (569020)


      It's not that the model can't work it just that if it becomes successful you are pretty much guaranteed to lose control of it at some point.

      The mistake you make is you keep trying to think of the model as "owning the software" rather than "employing smart people that make your product worth buying, and keeping those smart people happy". If you don't do both of those things, you fail.

      The problem is they hang like a knife (or maybe that should be fork) over the company and if they are unfortunate enough to a

    • But with the knife hanging over you, wouldn't you have more incentive to keep the imagination/heart of the community alive? It may be more difficult than simply answering to a board of directors/stockholders, but in the end you end up with a better quality product.

      Sun/Oracle/MySQL did not lose control of their product by any means, as they still own the name and brand. Most corporate customers most likely will stay with the main branch of the code and the supporting company rather than go with the

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by kv9 (697238)

      The Linux kernel and Plone being a couple of good examples. Both of those projects are structured very differently to the MySQL situation though as no one company is trying to make a living off the code.

      RedHat and SUSE might disagree with you on that one.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Bob9113 (14996)

      The problem is they hang like a knife (or maybe that should be fork) over the company and if they are unfortunate enough to annoy the community they could eaisly lose control of their product.

      And that is one of the major reasons why professional software engineers love commercial Open Source software. The company is on no uncertain terms with the customer: Keep us happy and we keep giving you money for support contracts. Turn into a dick and we walk. It is a vastly healthier relationship for mission critica

    • by Darth (29071)

      If we look at MySQL for example

      MySQL would be a bad example with which to try to assert your point. MySQL AB did not lose control of MySQL because they open sourced their main product. They were a very profitable company that grew large enough to be sought after for acquisition by major international corporations because they open sourced their main product.

      They lost control of it because they sold control to Sun. Sun is losing control not because people are unhappy that Sun owns MySQL now, but because Sun

  • Let me make it easy (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:06AM (#27686783)

    If MySQL had a BSD license it would be owned by the community.
    If MySQL had a "non-free" commecial license it would be owned by Oracle.
    The mess MySQL, and you, find yourselves in is because of MySQL's stupid dual-level license bullshit. Nobody seems to be able to figure it out or agree on it and it has caused more column inches of claptrap on Slashdot than the MySQL/PostgreSQL threads themselves. MySQL's originator's wanted to have it both ways: Lots-O-corporate money AND GPL poster child. Well they got their money alright, but to get it they had to pray for a really wealthy, poorly managed corporation to come along and vet their convoluted business plan. That would be Sun.

    Now, with a billion dollars spent to "buy" MySQL but a bunch of forks still out there, no company in their right mind is going to invest anything in MySQL because they'll be worried Widenius will just steal the improvements and fork it again. MySQL is pariah, it's poisoned.

    If you're running any kind of data volume worth talking about you're better off with PostgreSQL. Not only is it faster with *real* queries and more robust, but now it's safer going forward.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by jedidiah (1196)

      Except MySQL didn't want their code "owned by the community". That's why they dual licensed it to begin with.

      If they wanted it to be "free and open like BSD" they could have simply made the relevant parts LGPL.

      This notion of yours that FSF licenses are incompatable with business is just a fantasy.

  • Will the real MySQL please stand up.
  • If the code's GPL-licensed, the answer's simple: the user community. As long as the corporate owner continues to serve the users' needs, the users will stick with the "official" version. If the corporate owner (or any other fork maintainer for that matter) starts to send the code in directions that don't serve the users' needs, those users will tend to switch to a fork that does better serve their needs. If there isn't one now, there will be once some enterprising soul realizes there's money to be made givi

  • Secret to Success (Score:2, Insightful)

    by steltho (1121605)
    1. Create a company around a popular open source database.
    2. Sell company for $1 billion.
    3. Profit
    4. Fork it
    5. ???
    6. Profit again
  • by davecb (6526) * <davec-b@rogers.com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:28AM (#27687093) Homepage Journal

    So they improved InnoDB to make MySql more attractive to the small folks. If they become as big as eBay and PayPal, they probably will switch to Oracle (;-))

    --dave

  • I told my team mate this would happen as soon as I heard the news about Oracle buying Sun on Monday. I had NO idea it would happen this fast.

    Monty should call the new project OurSQL =D

    -Viz

  • by argent (18001) <peter@NOsPam.slashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Thursday April 23, 2009 @09:56AM (#27687505) Homepage Journal

    The people who own an open source application are the people who are at any point in time putting in the effort of maintaining it.

We warn the reader in advance that the proof presented here depends on a clever but highly unmotivated trick. -- Howard Anton, "Elementary Linear Algebra"

Working...