Open Source Licensing - Cuts Both Ways? 367
shortscruffydave writes "The Register is running a piece Open source databases - a sword that cuts both ways? which mentions one of the potential pitfalls of open source databases: "Open source is just another licensing model: the more accepted it becomes, the more it is adopted at a strategic level, the more it plays back into the hands of the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry". " I couldn't disagree more with the author of this piece, since I think the success of Postgres & MySQL are already contra-proof positive, but the piece is still an interesting read.
This article has no point. (Score:4, Informative)
Except they have? Article looks like flamebait/trolling to me, or else just ignorance.
More hope with open source (Score:2, Informative)
If its open, at least you have a chance to adapt and tinker to fix it.
Though in either case you'd probablly just go with a different provider.
Re:Contra-proof positive? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contra-proof positive? (Score:3, Informative)
Say I claim that the sky is red and offer evidence to that effect. If my evidence is inadequate, then it's not proof. If my evidence proves that the sky is definitely not red, then it's contra-proof: it proves the opposite of what I am claiming.
It would be less awkward to say "proof negative," but the contra- prefix is common in philosophical circles where this sort of fine distinction is usually relevant.
Re:Personally I agree (Score:2, Informative)
If you modified the GPL'd software for your own corporate needs, not for re-distribution, as seems to be the case with the target audience of the article, then you do *NOT* have to distribute any modified source.
-dZ.
Article is worthless. (Score:4, Informative)
we hafe a few ATL tape library units here at the datacenter. upgrading PAST windows NT4 means we have to pull those units and throw them away. ATL refuses to release drivers for them for 2K or 2K3 and suggest "buy our new product".
great, over $180,000.00US investment in WORKING SDLT robotic tape libraries because the company wants to drive revinue by forcing new hardware purchases. yet Linux and a couple of other FOSS packages saved that and they are now working along happily in our datacenter.
So all that development we did to support the tape library robitic units was a waste? Programmer time is dirt fricking cheap right now compared to enterprise level hardware costs. we built the platform on FOSS parts, those were free to us, so why do we needto be greedy assholes and not give out what we coded that was BUILT UPON the work already done by others?
I reccomend that everyone ignore the article as a know nothing screaming about things he read in a trade magazine.... because it is missing huge pieces of the puzzle that many many of us use every single day to save money and INCREASE revinue of the company.
Re:Can someone explain the MySQL license? (Score:2, Informative)
You should also look at PostgreSQL (a better bet if you need anything other than high throughput data reads), which is BSD licensed, allowing you to do more or less anything other than claim you wrote it or sue the creators if it breaks.
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Postgres? (Score:3, Informative)
PostgreSQL is not backed by a single commercial group, it is backed by many commercial groups. It is doing just fine that way, and will continue to do fine even if one off those backers goes belly up. That has happened before, that will happen again and exactly because there is no single controlling commercial interest group that does hardly affect the PostgreSQL development.
It is another licensing model (Score:1, Informative)
a. source is open and you are free to modify it, fix it, and submit patches to developer. Through developer consensus you can force a vendor to acknowledge an issue and fix it. Without source, you can't do this, and the vendor will often stonewall you.
b. you can demo it for as long as you like, on as many machines as you need to, without worrying about licensing issues disrupting your R&D. Some of us have projects with deadlines that sometimes interfere with R&D. a 30 or 60 day demo doesn't always allow us to do what we need to do. Some vendors balk when you ask for an extension.
c. you are paying for support, not the software. If you are a cash strapped company, you can use the software for free, and donate or buy support when cash becomes available. what a lot of proprietary companies overlook is the fact that by using the software up front, it can be possible to pay for it later, when you can't afford it, you never have the opportunity.
my 2 cents... no matter how you slice it, open source allows more opportunity, and profit. Eventually, everyone needs support ; )
True, but (Score:4, Informative)
You can divide open source software into two groups. There are those which are dual licensed (esp. those which are restrictively dual-licensed, such as MySQL) and there are those which are real community projects. The first case could be effectively destroyed or at least set back a number of years by the vendor going out of business, while the second will continue without anyone.
The article makes the mistake of assuming that these are the same. They are not.
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Informative)
I work for a steel mill. Years ago they bought out the source code to their "proprietary" ERP system because they needed changes the company didn't want to support.. Of course they still pay maintenance fees for what amounts to 50%+ their own stuff, but we couldn't move to a "new" version from the company without lots of $$$$.
But how would their situation differ if they used Open source software? They pay third-party programmers to come in and modify their system because they need it to work...now. If it was a Sourceforge project, they could "just fix it" and benifit from lots of other people helping too!
In a corperate situation the GPL doesn't hurt you that much. After all, you only have to provide source to whom you distribute binaries to. Most corperate software is "locked" into the company...it never leaves company property... so the only people who have the binaries are the IT staff...[isn't that clever]
I understand that intarrweb programming is slightly different... Web sites are considered by some to "distribute" the web pages... and that gets sticky. But in general, most corperate sites use 75% their own stuff, to be used for their business. Even if they were forced to release it, It'd be useless to 90% of the public... as long as it was stripped of proprietary info.. [passwords, accounting settings, that kind of thing aren't covered..you could release a "stripped" version if you needed to]
The sticky thing right now is that GPL doesn't cover USE of programs.. they really are free. GPL only covers distribution of programs... It's a subtle difference, but 75%+ of corperate software doesn't even vaguely fall under "distributed" so it's really nothing to worry about. Example: even if you gave a contractor a GPL program to use, it would be covered under confidential agreements like blueprints or anything else... They can't just "release it on the internet" because they have a copy.