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.
OpenSourcing a DB (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:5, Informative)
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:4, Insightful)
Granted, nothing I do requires incredible optimization to run efficently. I imagine their are some power users who need this. However, in my experience, there are more people who think they are cutting edge than there really are...
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:5, Insightful)
Take a company that is in control of an open source project. If they change their project radically, in a way other users of the software don't like, these can branch at any time. This allows them to at least maintain the old version of the software.
However, there has to be open source code for that. If all you have is an API and an SDK, you can't maintain such an older version for your ever-changing environment, should those in control of the closed source move into a direction you don't like.
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:OpenSourcing a DB (Score:5, Insightful)
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:OS Auditing TNG (Score:2)
Re:OS Auditing TNG (Score:3, Insightful)
I call bull (Score:5, Insightful)
The key argument for open source vs closed source is: The source is available, you can support/develop it by your own or hire in support/development/warranty, now try that with closed source.
All disadvantages for open source are at least applicable for closed source, closed source has no real advantage on open source.
Re:I call bull (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Re:I call bull (Score:4, Insightful)
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
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
I suggest you to take a closer look at the MySQL or Cygnus business model.
You will not get rich like Bill Gates, but you can live on it quite well.
Re:I call bull (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Insightful)
You should be paid for your -features-, not for someone else's work training people on it. We don't pay Ford on the driver's training fees, nor can we.
And I call bullshit anyways - Red hat developers get
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I call bull (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL, RedHat, SuSE etc manage to get money just fine.
I suspect the more Open Source is used, the greater will be the creation of local jobs. Most existing general software problems will eventually get solved. But people will still need fixes to local problems and local solutions to local problems. Solving local problems means a local software developer makes more sense than someone in India.
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Thats exactly what you want. You get them to use free software, get them to expect a minimal cost of free. But then when something with the free software doesn't adapt to the situation well, you (the developer) comes around and says "Oh, so you need it to do THAT. I can adapt it to do that, but it will cost you..." If you helped make the OSS program in the first place, that means
Re:I call bull (Score:5, Interesting)
Something that in essence you need half a brain and one finger, and you're now a 'Developer'.
Sure, the low end stuff done by people that don't know what being a Developer really entails are crap, fall over all the time, and are usually really shoddy..
But, a lot of the time they get things done, sufficiently to make people not want to pay for the real thing.
In the 'early days', before coding became popular (I started in the early 80's), you did it because it was a passion.
Then in the 'Golden Age', you could, and did, make shed loads of cash for being good.
Then everyone and their dog became a 'Developer' with the visual tools, and especially web front ends.
The market got saturated with a lot of low skilled developers that were good enough to be 'fit for purpose'.
Then supply outstripped demand. And wages plummeted.
So, it's not open source that's causing "Starving Artist" syndrome. It's your hallowed Closed Source businesses lowering the bar of entry, and creating the equivalent of a nearly automated software factory.
In a short time, AI should be able to code better than a skilled developer. Then all that'll be left is getting the spec right, and doing the design abstraction.
I'm sure that the Monks felt the same way when the printing press was invented.
What the "Idiots giving it away for free" are doing is simply making sure that there's more than one printing press out there. So at least people that want to learn, get to do so.
This way, the entry bar pushes more towards having the skill and aptitude to perform a task, rather than having to have massive funding.
And the meritocracy is beginning to reappear.
The Free software that's extremely good will get used. If it's that good that it gets used, it WILL need support in enterprise/business.
If you don't want to do it, make a company, and hire some people that DO want to do support (and you only support them, as you'd have to do with ANY software you write, if you're serious about it). You pay the support staff less than the customer pays you.. And lo and behold! You get a salary (big if the code is something wonderful and useful) for coding! And you've created jobs for people that DO want to do the support too!
So, in reality those "Idiots" are rather smart, and quite able to make a sizable wad of money out of it.
If you want to make a lot of money writing software, go do it. But working out how to do it is the trick.
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Insightful)
No such thing.
Next.
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Yes, and it'd be very nice if all of the creative work that anyone felt like they wanted to do could be highly paid.
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Wait, nevermind...
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Interesting)
Doing so ensures that not only I do get the immediate returns, I get a longer term return in that I can reuse components freely for multiple customers (assuming that they have compatible licensing and goals). This is rarely an option with closed source; I've even worked in closed source companies that have multiple customers - sometimes they won't even let you share code between them.
As for writing software that doesn't need support - heh
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Interesting)
Software development is not just about developing shrink wrapped solutions to the world at large - organisations pay for development for inhouse use, some use it for embedding in their products, others use software for their business to business communications and yes, some produce shrink wrapped solutions.
But let's assume that I were developing shrink wrapped s
Re:I call bull (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I call bull (Score:5, Insightful)
The last time I saw a developer that good...was...well, hell, I haven't seen one that good.
I actually believe that developers should always sit on the support lines for the products they write. Surprisingly enough, practical, well-built interfaces start to appear after the developer is forced to take the 900th call concerning a poorly implemented feature.
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Interesting)
"closed source has no real advantage on open source." -->Except for that little thing called "Developers getting paid"
You're almost right here, but not quite. There are many business models that allow developers of open source software to be paid. The problem is, their is not a widespread and accepted method for funding open source technologies, that does not bring with it some disadvantages.
Redhat's model for example is to develop software that is open source and sell support and services for that
Re:MOD PARENT UP (Score:4, Interesting)
If I develop A, I still see there is no protection keeping company M from reselling A and making additional money selling add-ons; all for a product that I created. M owes me no money, nor do the add-ons garner me any royalties.
Assuming A is licensed under the GPL, you can also sell M's add-ons, and contract to create enhancements to A that rely on those add-ons, so you can benefit from M's work just as much as they benefit from yours.
BTW, I've also done for-pay OSS work recently. Right now I'm writing closed-source software that makes heavy use of OSS components (and carefully complies with all of the relevant licensing requirements). My employer (IBM) is doing lots of both OSS and closed source development, and profiting from nearly all of it.
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Yep, nobody over at MySQL, RedHat, IBM, OSDL, Novell or the Apache Project (to name 6) are getting paid.
Just because you are not a sucessful Opensource developer does not mean that
Re:I call bull (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Since when does being "closed-source" mean "getting paid"? Yes, many companies base their model on closed source. Many others base their model on open source, and make [redhat.com] plenty [mysql.org] of [sleepycat.com] money [trolltech.com].
So wake up and smell the coffee! Times change, and your FUD-like statements are just so provably wrong.
Didn't you see the article yesterday on how open source drives down the cost of startup? [slashdot.org]
Don
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
See your bull, raise you two roosters (Score:5, Interesting)
A more full treatment of the TFA topic can be found in Coase's Penguin [benkler.org].
From the abstract:
My personal spin is that, just as the printing press broke down the medieval market on literacy, so the GPL will increasingly educate the masses.
Props to RMS, the modern Gutenberg.
Re:I call bull (Score:2, Interesting)
The benefit of having the source is grossly overstated by most FOSS advocates.
Seriously, how many people really want to be developing/modifying their back-end RDBMS? Personally I'd rather just install SQL Server or DB2 and let Microsoft or IBM deal with that - my domain is in a different realm, and the database server simply supports it. I'm not going to spend 100s of h
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
If your proprietary DB developer/company 'goes away' (or even just if they decide to discontinue the product in question), you are compeletely SOL and
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
Re:I call bull (Score:2)
The problem is that most companies don't want to do this for commodity-type software. They would rather spend the extra money to buy something from a large, well-known company that will support it for them, rather than deal with hiring developers to support the software themselves. While you, and others, may disa
Licenses protect products period. (Score:5, Interesting)
applications. It is interesting that the writer didn't tell us what option
he'd prefer - a closed license or no license at all. MySQL is offering a
choice of a commercial license or open-source. Money is important for the
survival of the company that markets open-source products but open-source
licenses don't restrict companies from charging for their product and MySQL
is a good example for how to deal with the issue.
Article was worthless business/management drivel (Score:3, Insightful)
Well that's no surprise, given that the article said nothing of any substance whatsoever.
In effect what we have here is a manager of some sort seeking justification for his role in applying "strategy management" to open source. I bet the managers around him think that he's really cool and clued up on all this.
In reality, he just doesn't understand that the value of FOSS doesn't come from the financial muscle and longevity of its co
Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Paragraph 2: Planning considerations
Paragraph 3: Existing players
Paragraph 4: Business considerations
Paragraph 5: Unsupported assertions
Paragraph 6: Unsupported assertions
Who founded Bloor Research? Who funds them? Who owns stock in them? Who are the members of their executive board and what are their social connections?
This is a really bad piece.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Say what? (Score:3, Insightful)
Just because they're not a Microsoft shill [reference.com], doesn't mean they're not a shill. Who would care about open source databases? Maybe Oracle, IBM (DB2), etc?
You know you've internalized a /. cliche (Score:2)
Paragraph 7: ???
Paragraph 8: Profit!
Geoff
Personally I agree (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes you can change the platform you are based on, but this typically costs more money than it is worth.
Yes you could modify the source, but this will cost more money than it is worth in R&D.
I.E., yes you are locked in, in the same way that the traditional behemoths that dominate the industry haved succesfully negotiated.
Re:Personally I agree (Score:2)
Sometimes one doesn't have a choice. Outgrowing old hardware, for instance. Yes you could modify the source, but this will cost more money than it is worth in R&D.
I've not found this to be true. Typically mods that would be needed are relatively small. It may take awhile to garner enought of an understanding of the existing code to properly make the change, howerver. It certainlty beats waiting
Re:Personally I agree (Score:2, Insightful)
Errr... isn't the cost of changing the source EXACTLY the cost of R&D? The cost of software drops as it scales in use, that's why consumer level software is affordable. MS Office is not less complex than say Maya, or "easier" in some sense to make. It just sells more copies, so the cost of R&D (all software development (not including marketing, etc) is R&D) is spread over more customers. The worth of sof
Re:Personally I agree (Score:3, Insightful)
Nice try, but that's precisely the difference with closed source. In open source, the R&D is already done by whoever wrote and developed the code to begin with, just like with closed source. However, with open source, you can take the latest code, latest R&D that was just made, and change it any way you like the same day, unlike closed source where you would have to duplicate the R&D yourself.
So
Re:Personally I agree (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't really agree. Being locked in to any platform is bad, sure, but you are only as locked in as you choose to be, because by and large there are cross-platform choices out there. And although it will never be 100% trouble-free to transition to alternative software, it is usually only minimal effort/expenditure required. And initial costs are usually only marginally higher. For example use wxWidgets [wxwidgets.org] for application development instead of a platform-specific API like Win32 or Cocoa. Not only is it a good API, but available for many platforms. Choose OpenGL instead of Direct3D for 3D graphics, games etc. Not only is it just as capable, it's cross-platform and non-proprietary. For databases use cross-platform database-neutral access methods like ODBC. We've done this with our application, and with only a relatively tiny amount of additional effort, we now have the choice of several major databases, and an easy path to others. If MySQL goes bad, we can just use another database.
Many people become locked in because they choose to do so, most do not seem to realise the longer-term penalties incurred when they lock themselves in to the latest flashy proprietary goodies from the traditional behemoths. In some cases one might need some more advanced functionality available only from specific vendors, but in most cases the requirements are a lot simpler and if you know what you're doing, you can avoid locking yourself in so badly that you can never get out.
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.
Misread TFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
The article seems to view the present hobbyist-driven projects as solutions procured in the same way that a company buys in commercial programming. The differences in modus operandi are so great that this cannot be the case. The trick is to find where the middle ground lies in order to profit.
Contra-proof positive? (Score:2)
Or did the real meaning escape me, since that doesn't seem to be valid in just about any language?
Re:Contra-proof positive? (Score:3, 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 wher
This article has no point. (Score:4, Informative)
Except they have? Article looks like flamebait/trolling to me, or else just ignorance.
Postgres? (Score:4, Insightful)
For MySQL you could be right, but Postgres? It's not backed by a commercial group as is MySQL, and while it can be seen in a LOT of commercial (enterprise) situations, it's still a tiney speck compared to it's commercial backed friend MySQL (even though it is much more of a "real" db).
Re:Postgres? (Score:2, Insightful)
The guy mentions couple of facts and states his opinion. Come on.
Re:Postgres? (Score:3, Insightful)
A database company exists to sell copies of a database. If they produce a perfect database, then they can sell a finite number of copies, and then go out of business (or, they
Re:Postgres? (Score:3, Informative)
PostgreSQL is not backed by a single commercial group, it is backed by many commercial group
software obsolescence (sp?) (Score:5, Insightful)
The benefit of open source is that if the original corporation writing the code stops supporting it there may be a community behind the software that will continue to support it as you transition. Also, another company may spring up with the same codebase.
--Keith
Where's the surprise? (Score:5, Insightful)
WHAT?!?!? You mean the "behemoths" can use open source too? How could this happen??!?! NO NO NO NO!!!!!
[Sarcasm off]Well what do you expect. Don't forget that opensource software != free software. of course the big guys will start using opensource too, now that they've started to see that light. What did anyone expect? Did you want to FSF to have a monopoly on opensource forever? I think not. I think the result of "big behemoths" switching to open source will be more secure software being delivered to end users. That's the whole point of OSS!
I for one welcome our opensource behemoth overlords.
What a contentless article (Score:3, Insightful)
Know what you're buying. Know who you're buying it from. Consider the entire lifecycle of the software solutions you're building. Oh, and there was a throwaway blurb about open source.
Re:What a contentless article (Score:2)
Oh, who am I kidding? It's not like the business model used by 95% of targeted "business journals" is a big secret:
1. Identify target demographic.
2. Spend most of your money selling ads
3. Spend any money left over identifying "eyeballs", i.e. people who will recieve free copies of your magazine.
4. Let the highest
Don't RTFA. It's a waste of time (Score:3, Insightful)
The central point seems to be that a company looking for an OSS product which is supported by a large company, will end up going with a large company's OSS product.
Oh, wow. Insightful +1
Re:Don't RTFA. It's a waste of time (Score:2)
The first premise stated is that there are too many (names just over a half-dozen) competing open-source databases, and that is too many to survive.
Last I looked, producing a database product cost a lot less than producing a new car - that doesn't stop manufacturers from producing hundreds of different cars a year.
Methinks the author of the article better look out for Simon (the BOfH) and his cattle prod.
IT Investment (Score:5, Insightful)
With that said, given the choice between installing a poorly supported, poorly documented open source database, or something like Microsoft SQL Server, its obvious which solution will let you keep your cushy IT position. Furthermore, as good as I have to admit MySQL is, it still does not have support for such common things as triggers, views or even basic stored procedures never mind data warehousing.
For these open source products to be taken seriously, the same sort of fundamental support and functionality will need to prevail as the costs of not having these far outweigh the monetary costs of the common retail solution.
Re:IT Investment (Score:2)
Re:IT Investment (Score:2)
Oracle has it's uses in large enviroments since it scales so much better.
Re:IT Investment (Score:2)
David
Re:IT Investment (Score:3, Insightful)
You're being a little presumptive there, aren't you? You'll keep your cushy IT position right up until your CEO starts noticing that his competitors are doing just fine with OSS (where appropriate, of course), and with greater flexibility and no vendor lock-in. Maybe you'll have some splainin' to do?
Seriously, though... Maybe we need a discussion of what "support" really me
Trust the vendor? (Score:4, Insightful)
No doubt that there are valid reasons for a commercial database vendor. But that guy makes about as much sense as the drooling drunk at 2am in front of the seedy night club in the bad part of town when it comes to "strategic decisions".
Strategic decisions by definition are dangerous. When you decided on PeopleSoft 10 years ago this looked strategically sound. Until the good burgers from Oracle came along and bought them out in order to squash a competitor. By no fault of your own you are fucking fucked when you're a PeopleSoft customer.
Au contraire I argue that especially in the db market having source access to your database software is about as strategically valuable as it comes.
Sorry mate, but I have seen to many examples of customers being fucked over by vendors of strategic software and you can go and tell the PR department of { Oracle | Microsoft | IBM } that they are just dead wrong and for an "analyst" it's bad form to just reprint their spew.
Not that I accuse you of doing that, but your "analysis" leaves a strong stench of not being quite independant.
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.
Old FUD argument, easily discredited (Score:3, Insightful)
For those who didn't know redhat just posted record profits, and the share price just jumped about 12%.
There is certainly money being made in open-source. The difference is: open-source will not die without money.
Bloor's fundamental error (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, open-source projects don't need to make money. Secondly, if users are dependent on them, they don't go away.
The "problem" that Bloor describes is either a phantom or self-correcting, whichever way you choose to look at it.
Author has points (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in a large sense, I agree with the author and will even say that in some cases, there is justifiable concern for an enterprize to avoid open software solutions.
Having said all that, I'm far from opposing open source software in the enterprize, quite to opposite in fact. Products like MySQL and Apache prove that there is a lot of room and potential in big business for OSS.
Anyone -- including big business needs to do a sort of risk evaluation before settling on anything that has the ability to affect the bottom line. For a public company it is more than business sense, it is the law. They need to know that the people they bring in on a project can do what they say they can do and just as importantly, that they will be around tomorrow to fix anything that is broken or needs changing.
For this reason, the enterprize level open source market will probably grow through pretty conventional methods. Either there will be in-house expertiese or they will hire consulting firms with the skill, knowlege, and expertise to deliver. Those firms will in many cases be old, established, familiar names that recognize the need and make the right moves to get in the market.
This isn't bad at all. It brings OSS legitamacy.
Re:Author has points (Score:2)
Toronto the nation-state (Score:5, Funny)
This is the same view of Fortune 500 Enterprise that Toronto has of its role within Canada. Whether the other nine provinces have ceased to exist depends on who you ask.
Nothing new here (Score:2)
That means that at some point in the future the market will consolidate and a number of these products will disappear. This may not matter too much if the products are not that important to you, but it certainly does if they are strategic.
You have to consider the above no matter what product you choose whether its opensource or not. If I have 5 products i'm evaluating and one of the co
Re:Nothing new here (Score:2)
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.
DB or DBMS? (Score:3, Interesting)
But putting aside that snippy, meaningless sales argument for a moment, we usually didn't care whether the client chose Open Source or Closed Source database tech (as long as we had someone on staff familiar with it). Our thought was that if we weren't paying for the tools we didn't care which system was chosen. We started to care after a custom van shop in Arizona wanted to use an all Microsoft platform (out of fear we'd abandon them and they wouldn't know what to do with this open source stuff). Being a startup though, they ran themselves in the ground and naturally our fees weren't paid due to the heavy fees they owed to Microsoft. After that, we'd push Open Source a little more if there was any sort of financial question about the company.
But the fact that we weren't a huge company did scare many clients. They were much more comfortable knowing that their cousin could fix something in Microsoft Access if we disappeared from the face of the earth, but they wouldn't have any idea what to do with a PostgreSQL data repository. This usually meant that either we'd use their preferred closed source tools or we'd create some extra tools for them for free to dump the repository to csv and tab separated formats.
Inevitably someone would ask me, personally, which dbms I thought was a better investment. I always loathed that question (since I was a programmer and not a salesman). But it usually came down to which programming environment I preferred and which environment I thought the salesperson had recommended. But looking back on it, if you were hiring our team to design the database that's where most of your expense would be. If you wanted to pay additional money to Microsoft for the database that was fine, but it wasn't going to reduce our costs any.
How enterprises will accept F/OSS (Score:5, Insightful)
1) all had made a "commitment" to open-source products;
2) almost none had done anything strategic up to that point (they all had a little Linux and a little Apache/MySQL floating around here and there, of course)
3) NONE were interested in the cost-reductions available with F/OSS
4) ALL were interested in the advanced technology which they felt was probably more available from F/OSS then from incumbent vendors
5) ALL were holding back waiting for better support options.
There was a lot of discussion about the latter point, including some really fascinating suggestions that belong in another discussion. But for here and now, the key thing is that you don't necessarily look for support for OSS DBMSs from the developers. Something like the Pervasive model is interesting, as long as they continue to maintain close ties with the developer communities. But OSS support is a service business, with linear cost-scaling characteristics, so we will need a lot of vendors to pitch in. I think it's a nascent large opportunity.
Wishful Thinking (Score:2)
Unfortunately for him, the new open source companies don't need to be behemoths, because they don't require the huge sales and marketing overhead of traditional companies. MySQL and PostgreSQL don't need to pay consultants and market
Author confused about open source (Score:2, Insightful)
Complete bullshit. The companies will disappear, but the product will live on in sourceforge (or where ever), exactly oppositite of what this inexperienced author says. Every customer of the product will have a copy of the source, which at least allows them the option of continui
my take on this (Score:2)
My take is that the author is really talking about consolidation of many major open source projects into a few and that this consolidation is going to be driven by large corporations. I see some reason in this. Many OS projects have conflict at some level. You can't gracefully merge postgres and MySQL or Gnome and KDE. At some point, business is collectively going wi
MySQL AB's intent (Score:2)
We don't actually mind if some conservative opinion leaders fail to see the power of open source databases.
Our intent is to demonstrate to the world (and ourselves) that open source can indeed produce databases that become strategic for enterprise customers. We are also here to show that open source can produce profitable, healthy businesses. It's a crusade, and there will always be sceptics when you do something new.
Marten Mickos, CEO, MySQL AB
Not insightful at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Step 1: Replace the phrase "open source" with "closed source."
Step 2: Replace names of open source products with the names of their closed-source counterparts.
Check if the article's arguments and criticisms still apply. If so, the author hasn't written a critique of open source software, he's written a critique of software, and probably not a terribly insightful one at that.
Re:Not insightful at all (Score:3, Interesting)
What you gonna do when they come for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're a developer of an OSS project, along with several others (geographically diverse). You get a call one day...
"Hi, This is Clueful Manager from MegaCorp. We'd like to use your software in our business."
You say "Sure, go ahead; it's open source. Of course it'd be nice if you'd donate to our project..."
CM says "Yes, that's why I'm calling. We'd like some extra functionality added, and we're willing to pay you to add it. What do you say?"
Maybe MegaCorp will hire you; but then you're their employee, subject to their restrictions.
Maybe they hire you as a contractor; but then what about the other devels? Are they out of luck just because it's your email that's in the README?
Maybe MegaCorp's expecting to treat you like a vendor. In which case you'd need to supply invoices, bills, tax info, and all the other things a 'real' business would supply.
WARNING TO OSS DEVELOPERS: Success is coming! You need to think about what you're going to leverage the success of your software. Do you want a profit? Or just enough to pay the bills? Do the other devels agree with you? Or, do you ignore all such requests, unless they interest you as interesting challenges?
Open Source Licensing cuts like a knife. (Score:3, Funny)
(Na na na na na na na na na na)
Re:Can someone explain the MySQL license? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Can someone explain the MySQL license? (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't redistribute it, you don't need the commercial license. Note that if you don't distribute code from any open source license, including GPL, you don't need to open your code. OS licenses are based on copyright law, and copy
Whatever, Jeff (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, I don't see why you don't just do it. With a 2.38% share drop being less in cash than it costs to buy a piece of Bazooka Joe, it doesn't look like VA Software could really s