Re: [Maria-developers] [MariaDB/server] MDEV-9857: line cache size (to 10.1) (#169)
Sergey Vojtovich <notifications@github.com> writes:
Since Alexey's patch wasn't yet accepted by MySQL we need his confirmation that we can take it under BSD-new or MCA terms. @akopytov, could you confirm?
That _really_ is completely ridiculous! So here we have a patch. You will gladly accept it from MySQL/Oracle under GPL v2, without any special conditions. But the very same patch, submitted directly by the original author, you will not take??!? Now, obviously this is not something Sergey Vojtovich invented on his own, I doubt he even agrees personally. So Otto, you specifically asked me to be more vocal about MariaDB Foundation issue. Can we please have your personal opinions on this idea of BSD/contributer agreement for selected potential contributers? I have from the very start of MariaDB been strongly opposed to any form of contributer agreements or reciprocal licensing. Fortunately, we never really had it in practice, since all major contributions (MySQL@Oracle, XtraDB, oqgraph, sphinx, tokudb, galera, ...) were GPL only. But recently we have this message to potential contributers that the MariaDB Foundation "needs" to have BSD or MCA. This is extremely disrespectful for at least two reasons: - There clearly is no such "need", since the Foundation receives GPL rights only to a large part of new contributions to MariaDB - for example from Galera, MySQL@Oracle, Percona. - Selected contributers are except from this requirement. For example, according to my information, large parts of the MariaDB code to which the company SkySQL/MariaDB Corporation has full rights, they are _not_ required to provide BSD/MCA for to the MariaDB Foundation. Otto, I strongly encourage you to look to other successful Free Software projects such as the Linux Kernel, where an important part of the success is the deliberate choice of GPL-only _without_ any reciprocal licensing. I urge you to re-consider, and take a personal stance against this BSD/MCA nonsense, and work strongly for an official GPL-only contributer policy. Meanwhile, I encourage all contributers to _not_ accept this BSD/MCA requirement. If you disagree, be aware that there is no such strong requirement, and the major part of contributions to MariaDB are done without this requirement. If your contribution is accepted, but under condition of BSD/MCA, and you disagree, ask on the mailing list for someone else with commit rights to push your patch. I am sure there are several that will be willing to do so. - Kristian.
Hi, Kristian! On May 05, Kristian Nielsen wrote:
Sergey Vojtovich <notifications@github.com> writes:
Since Alexey's patch wasn't yet accepted by MySQL we need his confirmation that we can take it under BSD-new or MCA terms. @akopytov, could you confirm?
That _really_ is completely ridiculous! So here we have a patch. You will gladly accept it from MySQL/Oracle under GPL v2, without any special conditions. But the very same patch, submitted directly by the original author, you will not take??!?
This patch was contributed to Oracle under OCA. It's not GPLv2. Oracle might or might not publish it under GPLv2. If Oracle will do it - we will be able to take it under GPLv2. But until then - there's no license on it that allows us to use it.
Now, obviously this is not something Sergey Vojtovich invented on his own, I doubt he even agrees personally. So Otto, you specifically asked me to be more vocal about MariaDB Foundation issue. Can we please have your personal opinions on this idea of BSD/contributer agreement for selected potential contributers?
I have from the very start of MariaDB been strongly opposed to any form of contributer agreements or reciprocal licensing. had it in practice, since all major contributions (MySQL@Oracle, XtraDB, oqgraph, sphinx, tokudb, galera, ...) were GPL only. But recently we have this message to potential contributers that the MariaDB Foundation "needs" to have BSD or MCA.
You miss the fact that the patch we're talking about is not GPLv2. The question is not about relicensing GPLv2 patch under BSD. It's about getting any license at all. Regards, Sergei Chief Architect MariaDB and security@mariadb.org
Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> writes:
confirmation that we can take it under BSD-new or MCA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The question is not about relicensing GPLv2 patch under BSD. It's about getting any license at all.
So do I understand you correctly: The fact that the original request to the contributer asks for only BSD-new or MCA is an oversight? And all contributers should read this and similar requests as a request for granting either BSD, MCA, _or_ GPLv2 rights to patches, at the contributer's choice? Thanks, - Kristian.
Hi, Kristian! On May 05, Kristian Nielsen wrote:
Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> writes:
confirmation that we can take it under BSD-new or MCA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The question is not about relicensing GPLv2 patch under BSD. It's about getting any license at all.
So do I understand you correctly: The fact that the original request to the contributer asks for only BSD-new or MCA is an oversight? And all contributers should read this and similar requests as a request for granting either BSD, MCA, _or_ GPLv2 rights to patches, at the contributer's choice?
No, I did not say that. BSD-new is, indeed, preferred, because it's a more open license and the ecosystem benefits from it. For example, Oracle can take any patch that was published under BSD, even if it was contributed to MariaDB. But Oracle cannot use patches, that were published under GPLv2. So, indeed, the standard request is "please contribute under MCA or BSD-new". But this is unrelated to the contribution that we're talking about. It was neither under MCA, nor under BSD, nor under GPLv2. It was under OCA. Which does not give us right to use it. Was it under GPLv2, that would've been enough. Regards, Sergei Chief Architect MariaDB and security@mariadb.org
Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> writes:
Was it under GPLv2, that would've been enough.
Ok, this is good to know. So if a patch is made available only under GPLv2, not BSD or MCA, it can still be included in MariaDB, same as any other contribution.
So, indeed, the standard request is "please contribute under MCA or BSD-new".
It is ok to ask, of course. I am sure many contributers are fine with this. But it would be good to clarify that in the end, it is up to the choice of the contributer. I am sure I am not the only one who is confused by the current requests for licence from contributers. "The MariaDB Foundation needs" is different from "The MariaDB Foundation suggests".
But this is unrelated to the contribution that we're talking about. It
I hope it was clear that I am not interested in this particular patch, I was trying to point out a general issue. - Kristian.
On 5 May 2016, at 22:33, Sergei Golubchik <serg@mariadb.org> wrote:
confirmation that we can take it under BSD-new or MCA ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ The question is not about relicensing GPLv2 patch under BSD. It's about getting any license at all.
So do I understand you correctly: The fact that the original request to the contributer asks for only BSD-new or MCA is an oversight? And all contributers should read this and similar requests as a request for granting either BSD, MCA, _or_ GPLv2 rights to patches, at the contributer's choice?
No, I did not say that. BSD-new is, indeed, preferred, because it's a more open license and the ecosystem benefits from it. For example, Oracle can take any patch that was published under BSD, even if it was contributed to MariaDB. But Oracle cannot use patches, that were published under GPLv2.
The reality is that, does Oracle ever take patches today from MariaDB Server? I’m going to say that more or less this does not happen, which means that the official messaging should now be: Please contribute your patches under GPLv2, BSD-new or sign the MCA if you choose to
So, indeed, the standard request is "please contribute under MCA or BSD-new".
But this is unrelated to the contribution that we're talking about. It was neither under MCA, nor under BSD, nor under GPLv2. It was under OCA. Which does not give us right to use it. Was it under GPLv2, that would've been enough.
Of course, in this particular case, the OCA is how it was contributed and there is no point arguing about it, but the MariaDB Server should be able to accept under GPLv2/BSD-new While we are on this topic, why are we asking for copyright assignment under the MCA today? From the FAQ: https://mariadb.com/kb/en/mariadb/mariadb-contributor-agreement-frequently-a... in case we have forgotten the original reasons…. -- Colin Charles, http://bytebot.net/blog/ twitter: @bytebot | skype: colincharles "First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mohandas Gandhi
participants (3)
-
Colin Charles -
Kristian Nielsen -
Sergei Golubchik