Re: [Maria-developers] MariaDB and the SCA
Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> writes:
Davi Arnaut <Davi.Arnaut@Sun.COM> writes:
I've been monitoring the maria-developers list and there are some patches that we would like to gradually incorporate into our branches. For a practical example, i would like to merge into 5.1 parts of this (http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt) patch by Kristian.
Negotiations between Monty Program and Sun have started some time ago on a deal which would cover how Sun will get the rights it needs (ie. SCA) to include the MariaDB code into the MySQL code, and how Monty Program will receive compensation for giving these rights. As I understand it, these negotiations are however still in the early phase.
Apparently, this is moving nowhere :-(. Davi, I'm sorry there has been no progress on this. We discussed this again in MariaDB, and would like to get things working better for now. What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license. I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level. - Kristian.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kristian Nielsen<knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> wrote:
Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> writes:
Davi Arnaut <Davi.Arnaut@Sun.COM> writes:
I've been monitoring the maria-developers list and there are some patches that we would like to gradually incorporate into our branches. For a practical example, i would like to merge into 5.1 parts of this (http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt) patch by Kristian.
Negotiations between Monty Program and Sun have started some time ago on a deal which would cover how Sun will get the rights it needs (ie. SCA) to include the MariaDB code into the MySQL code, and how Monty Program will receive compensation for giving these rights. As I understand it, these negotiations are however still in the early phase.
Apparently, this is moving nowhere :-(.
Davi, I'm sorry there has been no progress on this. We discussed this again in MariaDB, and would like to get things working better for now.
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
Kristian, Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and we are happy to cooperate. henrik -- Henrik Ingo Project Manager and COO, Monty Program Ab hingo@askmonty.org, skype:henrik.ingo, +358405697354 http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/About_Us What's up with MariaDB? http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MariaDB
Hi Henrik, Kristian, On 03/09/2009, at 9:05 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kristian Nielsen<knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> wrote:
Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> writes:
Davi Arnaut <Davi.Arnaut@Sun.COM> writes:
I've been monitoring the maria-developers list and there are some patches that we would like to gradually incorporate into our branches. For a practical example, i would like to merge into 5.1 parts of this (http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt) patch by Kristian.
Negotiations between Monty Program and Sun have started some time ago on a deal which would cover how Sun will get the rights it needs (ie. SCA) to include the MariaDB code into the MySQL code, and how Monty Program will receive compensation for giving these rights. As I understand it, these negotiations are however still in the early phase.
Apparently, this is moving nowhere :-(.
Davi, I'm sorry there has been no progress on this. We discussed this again in MariaDB, and would like to get things working better for now.
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and we are happy to cooperate.
It's how it works with Drizzle. However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this before, it does not make me particularly happy. Here's the layout: - the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun. - BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives. And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy salespeople. By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is able to continue that. Do you want that? "yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more important to get the changes upstream. But I think the question needs to be asked explicitly. Hence. Cheers, Arjen. -- Arjen Lentz, Exec.Director @ Open Query (http://openquery.com) Exceptional Services for MySQL at a fixed budget. Follow our blog at http://openquery.com/blog/ OurDelta: enhanced builds for MySQL @ http://ourdelta.org
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Arjen Lentz<arjen@openquery.com> wrote:
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and we are happy to cooperate.
It's how it works with Drizzle. However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this before, it does not make me particularly happy.
Here's the layout: - the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun. - BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives.
And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy salespeople. By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is able to continue that. Do you want that?
"yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more important to get the changes upstream.
For now, we will do this for all changes we'd like to get merged upstream, but not everything we do. Basically this amounts to "all bug fixes". You're absolutely right that it doesn't make sense that something our company employees spent hundreds of hours producing, would just be given for free to Sun to support their business of selling essentially proprietary MySQL licensees. We are open to talking with Sun on how to do that too, but for now we don't see a point in just giving it away. henrik
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Henrik Ingo<henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Arjen Lentz<arjen@openquery.com> wrote:
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and we are happy to cooperate.
It's how it works with Drizzle. However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this before, it does not make me particularly happy.
Here's the layout: - the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun. - BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives.
And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy salespeople. By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is able to continue that. Do you want that?
"yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more important to get the changes upstream.
For now, we will do this for all changes we'd like to get merged upstream, but not everything we do. Basically this amounts to "all bug fixes".
You're absolutely right that it doesn't make sense that something our company employees spent hundreds of hours producing, would just be given for free to Sun to support their business of selling essentially proprietary MySQL licensees. We are open to talking with Sun on how to do that too, but for now we don't see a point in just giving it away.
Why it's perfectly OK that MariaDB gets MySQL bugfixes for free and instead it's a rip off if MySQL gets MariaDB bug fixes? MariaDB requires the same kind of legal grants that Sun asks, and the FAQ even states "The MCA is based on Sun's Contributor Agreement. We think it is one of the best contributor agreements around! " http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MCA_FAQ So, where is the catch? If Sun asks for the SCA, it's "greedy salesmen". If MariaDB asks the same thing, it's "protecting the community". Giuseppe
Hi Giuseppe I'm cross-posting to maria-discuss since this is now a non-technical discussion. Please remove maria-developers when replying. On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Giuseppe Maxia<g.maxia@gmail.com> wrote:
Why it's perfectly OK that MariaDB gets MySQL bugfixes for free and instead it's a rip off if MySQL gets MariaDB bug fixes?
Of course, all of the MariaDB source code is available as GPL, just like for MySQL. Sun is not prohibited from using it under the GPL, just like we are using MySQL code.
MariaDB requires the same kind of legal grants that Sun asks, and the FAQ even states "The MCA is based on Sun's Contributor Agreement. We think it is one of the best contributor agreements around! " http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MCA_FAQ
We've made some adjustments, but yes, apparently it is one of the best contributor agreements around, the community seems to think. That's why we use it.
So, where is the catch? If Sun asks for the SCA, it's "greedy salesmen". If MariaDB asks the same thing, it's "protecting the community".
Actually, it is very important that MariaDB copyrights are pooled to one owner, we could get into trouble if we didn't do that. (I won't give the details, so as not to give any ideas.) Same is true for XtraDB, where we have advised Percona to pool the copryights from any non-Percona contributors. It's not like we (MP) want to own everything, but somebody has to do it. Personally my first motivation in favor of pooling copyrights was however entirely benevolent towards MySQL and its users. By having the copyrights pooled in one place (rather than just going all GPL), we are able to assign the code back to Sun (if we so agree), and I'd really like to do that so that all MySQL users, also the commercial licensees would benefit from the MariaDB work. henrik -- email: henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi tel: +358-40-5697354 www: www.avoinelama.fi/~hingo book: www.openlife.cc
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 5:18 AM, Henrik Ingo<henrik.ingo@avoinelama.fi> wrote:
Hi Giuseppe
I'm cross-posting to maria-discuss since this is now a non-technical discussion. Please remove maria-developers when replying.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:01 PM, Giuseppe Maxia<g.maxia@gmail.com> wrote:
Why it's perfectly OK that MariaDB gets MySQL bugfixes for free and instead it's a rip off if MySQL gets MariaDB bug fixes?
Of course, all of the MariaDB source code is available as GPL, just like for MySQL. Sun is not prohibited from using it under the GPL, just like we are using MySQL code.
I look forward to using improvements published by MariaDB.
MariaDB requires the same kind of legal grants that Sun asks, and the FAQ even states "The MCA is based on Sun's Contributor Agreement. We think it is one of the best contributor agreements around! " http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MCA_FAQ
We've made some adjustments, but yes, apparently it is one of the best contributor agreements around, the community seems to think. That's why we use it.
Will MariaDB incorporate BSD-licensed features published by the community? -- Mark Callaghan mdcallag@gmail.com
Hi Arjen, (Also posted to Maria-Discuss, so postings to Maria-Developers can be dropped on follow-up). On Sep 3, 2009, at 1:21 PM, Arjen Lentz wrote:
Hi Henrik, Kristian,
On 03/09/2009, at 9:05 PM, Henrik Ingo wrote:
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 12:51 PM, Kristian Nielsen<knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> wrote:
Kristian Nielsen <knielsen@knielsen-hq.org> writes:
Davi Arnaut <Davi.Arnaut@Sun.COM> writes:
I've been monitoring the maria-developers list and there are some patches that we would like to gradually incorporate into our branches. For a practical example, i would like to merge into 5.1 parts of this (http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt) patch by Kristian.
Negotiations between Monty Program and Sun have started some time ago on a deal which would cover how Sun will get the rights it needs (ie. SCA) to include the MariaDB code into the MySQL code, and how Monty Program will receive compensation for giving these rights. As I understand it, these negotiations are however still in the early phase.
Apparently, this is moving nowhere :-(.
Davi, I'm sorry there has been no progress on this. We discussed this again in MariaDB, and would like to get things working better for now.
What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific patches under a BSD-new license.
I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old that it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for this or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have the ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should be able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and we are happy to cooperate.
It's how it works with Drizzle. However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this before, it does not make me particularly happy.
Here's the layout: - the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun. - BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives.
And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy salespeople.
As far as I know, with the advent of the BSD licensed libdrizzle (https://launchpad.net/libdrizzle ), which also runs with MySQL (and I assume MariaDB), the dual licensing model is now irrelevant. My reading of the GPL license (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) is that only programs that link GPL components become part of the greater work. From the GPL section "1. Source Code.": "For example, Corresponding Source includes interface definition files associated with source files for the work, and the source code for shared libraries and dynamically linked subprograms that the work is specifically designed to require, such as by intimate data communication or control flow between those subprograms and other parts of the work." So linked sub-programs are included. But: "However, it does not include the work's System Libraries, or general- purpose tools or generally available free programs which are used unmodified in performing those activities but which are not part of the work." So an unmodified free program like mysqld (the MySQL daemon), are not part of the work. This means that a programming linking libdrizzle, and then accessing mysqld over a communications _channel_ (like TCP, socket, pipe, etc), does not need to be GPL.
By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is able to continue that. Do you want that?
"yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more important to get the changes upstream. But I think the question needs to be asked explicitly. Hence.
-- Paul McCullagh PrimeBase Technologies www.primebase.org www.blobstreaming.org pbxt.blogspot.com
participants (6)
-
Arjen Lentz -
Giuseppe Maxia -
Henrik Ingo -
Kristian Nielsen -
MARK CALLAGHAN -
Paul McCullagh