Re: MySQL Gemini code

Michael Widenius <monty@mysql.com> writes:

> Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright
> of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is
> actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For
> example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications)

Ximian isn't doing a lot of gnome applications, just a few
("Evolution" springs to mind, and their installer). Signing over
copyright to Ximian wouldn't make much sense - GNOME isn't a Ximian
project, so they can't dual license it anyway.

> Assigning over the code is also something that FSF requires for all
> code contributions.  If you criticize us at MySQL AB, you should
> also criticize the above.

This is slightly different - FSF wants it so it will have a legal
position to defend its programs:

************************************************************************
http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain_6.html

If you maintain an FSF-copyrighted package, then you should follow
certain legal procedures when incorporating changes written by other
people. This ensures that the FSF has the legal right to distribute
the package, and the right to defend its free status in court if
necessary.

Before incorporating significant changes, make sure that the person
who wrote the changes has signed copyright papers and that the Free
Software Foundation has received and signed them. We may also need a
disclaimer from the person's employer.
************************************************************************

MySQL and TrollTech requires copyright assignment in order to sell
non-open licenses. Some people will have a problem with this, while
not having a problem with the FSF copyright assignment.
> I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL
> regarding this.  You may have similar experience or at least
> understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for
> PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for
> the main developers to PostgreSQL. 

This isn't even a remotely similar situation:

* For MySQL, the scenario is that a company made available an open version of its product while continuing to sell it
underother licenses. 
 

* For PostgreSQL, it has been a long living project which spawned companies which then hired some of the core
developers.
 

We're not reselling someone elses product with minor enhancements
(companies have been known to be doing that to products we create), 
we're selling support and working on additions to an open project.

That may make it harder for the companies now employing the core
developers (or may help, as PostgreSQL gets more much deserved
publicity and technical credit), but doesn't violate the project's
licenses and a company's trademark the way NuSphere did with MySQL.

> Anyway, I think that we open source developers should stick
> together.  We may have our own disagreements, but at least we are
> working for the same common goal (open source domination).
> 
> If you ever need any support from us regarding the RedHat database,,
> please contact me personally about this. 

Red Hat is firmly committed to open source, and is definitely a big
open source developer.


-- 
Trond Eivind Glomsrød
Red Hat, Inc.