Re: MySQL Gemini code

Hi!

>>>>> "Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com> writes:


Jan> Moin Monty,
Jan> dear fence-guests,

Thanks.

>> 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) does
>> the same thing.  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.

Jan>     I should not criticize the others and Trond already explained
Jan>     why (thank you).

Jan>     All I was doing was summing  up  some  of  the  latest  press
Jan>     releases  from NuSphere and MySQL AB. You as CTO and your own
Jan>     CEO have explained detailed  enough  why  the  assignment  of
Jan>     copyright  for  all  core system related code is so important
Jan>     for your company because of  your  business  modell.  As  the
Jan>     original banker I am, and as the 13+ year IT consultant I am,
Jan>     I don't have the slightest problem with that  and  understand
Jan>     it  completely.  It's  not  my  business at all anyway, so it
Jan>     doesn't matter if I personally think it's good or not.

Jan>     But NuSphere said, that the  problem  with  contributing  the
Jan>     Gemini  code  was because of the copyright questions. Looking
Jan>     at the code now and realizing that it's part of the  Progress
Jan>     storage  system  fits  perfectly.  NuSphere  might  have  had
Jan>     permission from Progress to release it under the GPL, but not
Jan>     to  assign  the copyright to MySQL AB. The copyright of parts
Jan>     of the Gemini code  is  still  property  of  Progress  (Britt
Jan>     please  come  down from the fence and correct me if I'm wrong
Jan>     here).

We have never asked for the copyright to Gemini; We don't need the
copyright to do an embedded version of MySQL, as MySQL works perfectly
without Gemini; We have an agreement with Innobase Oy and an
understanding with Sleepycat so we can provide ACID transactions even
without Gemini, if any of our commercial customers would require this.
(Sorry for the 'business talk', but I just wanted to fill in the
background)

In my opinion the whole thing with the copyright is a public stunt of
NuSphere to explain why they are now doing a fork.  I don't have any
problems with a fork as long as they don't call it MySQL and don't do
it on a site called mysql.org.

>> 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. 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).

Jan>     The RedHAT  database  IS  PostgreSQL.  And  I  don't  see  it
Jan>     becoming something different. All I've seen up to now is that
Jan>     RedHAT will be a contributing member of the  PostgreSQL  open
Jan>     source  community  in the same way, PostgreSQL Inc. and Great
Jan>     Bridge LLC are. That they use BIG RED letters while  GB  uses
Jan>     BIG  BLUE  ones  and  PgSQL  Inc.  a  bavarian  mix  for  the
Jan>     marketing, yeah - that's marketing - these folks  like  logos
Jan>     and  colors.  The  real difference will mature somehow in the
Jan>     service portfolios  over  time.  And  since  there  are  many
Jan>     different  customers  with  a broad variety of demands, we'll
Jan>     all find more food than we can eat. No need to fight  against
Jan>     each other.

Sound's good. I really hope it will be that way in the long run!
On the other hand, in the beginning our deal with NuSphere also
appeared to be good:(

Jan>     The  major advantage in the PostgreSQL case is, that we don't
Jan>     need no dispute about licensing, because  whoever  thinks  he
Jan>     can  make  a  deal  out  of  keeping something proprietary is
Jan>     allowed to. People contributing under  the  BSD  license  are
Jan>     just  self-confident  enough  to know that this will become a
Jan>     niche solution or die anyway.

Yes, in your case the BSD license is a good license.  For us at MySQL
AB, that have paid staff doing all most all development work on the
server, the GPL license is a better license as this allows to put all
software we develop under open source and still make a living.  (I am
not trying to start a flame war here; I am just saying that both
licenses have their use and both benefit open source, but in different
ways)

Jan>     And there we are at the point about "support regarding THIS".
Jan>     If  you're  asking for support for the MySQL project, well, I
Jan>     created two procedural languages in  PostgreSQL  so  far  and
Jan>     know  enough  about  the  query  rewriting techniques used by
Jan>     Stonebraker and his team to implement  views  in  PostgreSQL.
Jan>     As  the open source developer I am, I might possibly find one
Jan>     or the other spare hour to  create  something  similar.   The
Jan>     reason  I did it for PostgreSQL was because a couple of years
Jan>     ago Bruce Momjian asked me to fix the rule system. Noone ever
Jan>     asked  me to do anything for MySQL.  But if you're asking for
Jan>     direct support for your  company,  sorry,  but  I'm  a  Great
Jan>     Bridge employee and that's clearly against my interests.

The only thing I ask for support is against mysql.org, as this clearly
violates our trademark, and public support against any company that
breaks copyrights or open source licenses.  I don't think that this
would be a problem for anyone that believes in open source,
independent of who they work for.

Jan> But  maybe  Mr.  Mickos told the truth, that there never have
Jan> been substantial contributions from the  outside  and  nearly
Jan> all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little
Jan> "donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's  launch  of
Jan> mysql.org was long overdue.
>> 
>> Why do you think that?
>> 
>> MySQL AB is a totally open source company.  Everything we develop and
>> sell we also put on open source.  I think we have are doing and have
>> always done the right thing for the open source community.

Jan>     That  is  what  your  CEO  said  on  NewsForge,  SlashDot and
Jan>     whereever.  I am committed to free source. Thus I think  that
Jan>     the best thing for open source is a free community, which and
Jan>     who's product is not controlled by any commercial entity.

I am also committed to open source even if my standpoint is a little
different from yours. Anyone can do a fork of MySQL, if they don't
think that we are doing the right thing.  I don't have a problem with
that (I wouldn't like it, but it's a rule of the game).  I am however
against people that are using others trademark or copyrighted stuff
without permission.

>> I don't think it's really fair to be compare us to NuSphere :(

Jan>     Did I? That wasn't my intention.  And  nothing  I  wrote  was
Jan>     meant  personally.  Even if the PostgreSQL and MySQL projects
Jan>     had some differences  in  the  past,  there  has  never  been
Jan>     something between Monty and Jan (not to my knowledge).

That's right. Sorry for being a little 'on the edge', but this NuSphere
business is taking it's tool.

Jan>     Let's  meet  next week at O'Reilly (you're there, aren't you)
Jan>     and have a beer.

I will not be there, but you will find my partner David there. I am
sure he also would like to meet and chat with you for a while.

I will try to keep down my postings on this list now (if not something
REALLY interesting comes up). I just wanted you to give you a quick
look from the other side of the fence.

Regards,
Monty