Re: [Maria-discuss] [Maria-developers] MariaDB and the SCA
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 Nielsenknielsen@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the dual licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy salespeople.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
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 3:54 PM, Paul McCullaghpaul.mccullagh@primebase.org wrote:
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.
You may be right.
For practical purposes it's problematic that the MySQL salesforce and lawyers would not agree with you (at least in all cases how MySQL is used). So even if you were right, you would be in for a long fight with Ora... whoever owns MySQL.
By this I don't mean to say that many others wouldn't agree with you, it's just another practical consideration.
henrik
Hi Paul
On 03/09/2009, at 10:54 PM, Paul McCullagh wrote:
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.
You're legally correct (apart from libmysqld type apps that link in the entire server) but that's not how it's been sold for the last 5 years. The sales people's definition of "embedding" is not the same as what you and I see. They also futz with the definition of linking, and do some scare-mongering on IP risk (see, someone is making money - indirectly- off the SCO mess ;-) The result is that they have clients that purchased licenses that didn't need them, for various reasons.
In 2007-2008 they even made the creator of an independent client library pay for interacting with the server; again that was done on the basis of risk. When I found out at the MySQL conf I slapped MySQL legal (I was already external) and told 'em if I ever saw it again I'd be quite public about it. They knew fulwell that there was no legal basis, and admitted as much. But it's happened since, this year in fact. So despite sane and conscientious lawyers, the fun continues. Revenue comes first.
With "risk" as the validation force, the sales attitude will not chance until that leverage no longer exists anywhere in the server. The sales people run on commission and work with quarterly goals; they will do whatever it takes to close, including twist and lie. There is no "be a good citizen" or "be nice for the future". It's do the slick talk, close, and move on to the next client aka victim. It's essentially become an extortion scheme. But since clients can be presumed to be savvy enough to stand up for themselves or take appropriate legal advice, it's -as far as I know- legal. Doesn't make it right though.
There are good people at Sun, there are good people at MySQL, and there are even good Sales people at Sun/MySQL. But MySQL AB regarded it was valid tactics ("necessary freedom to do their work" was what VP Kaj told me when I raised concern about tactics employed by Louis Fahrberger and Kerry Ancheta), and while Sun explicitly stating that this was not how it wanted to conduct its business, it has continued. It's very difficult to change what's essentially corporate policy. Specifically when the renumeration method for sales encourages (I won't say necessitates) it. And thus I no longer direct anyone to a MySQL sales person; it wouldn't be a fair thing to do to a fellow human being.
Hence my opinion that dual licensing needs to go, from all parts of the server. Otherwise this will not stop. Having the BSD client library by Eric Day is fabulous both for licensing and for its nice design, but unfortunately it hasn't made the sales problem go away yet.
Cheers, Arjen.
On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Arjen Lentzarjen@openquery.com wrote:
Hi Paul
On 03/09/2009, at 10:54 PM, Paul McCullagh wrote:
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.
You're legally correct (apart from libmysqld type apps that link in the entire server) but that's not how it's been sold for the last 5 years. The sales people's definition of "embedding" is not the same as what you and I see. They also futz with the definition of linking, and do some scare-mongering on IP risk (see, someone is making money -indirectly- off the SCO mess ;-) The result is that they have clients that purchased licenses that didn't need them, for various reasons.
In 2007-2008 they even made the creator of an independent client library pay for interacting with the server; again that was done on the basis of risk. When I found out at the MySQL conf I slapped MySQL legal (I was already external) and told 'em if I ever saw it again I'd be quite public about it. They knew fulwell that there was no legal basis, and admitted as much. But it's happened since, this year in fact. So despite sane and conscientious lawyers, the fun continues. Revenue comes first.
With "risk" as the validation force, the sales attitude will not chance until that leverage no longer exists anywhere in the server. The sales people run on commission and work with quarterly goals; they will do whatever it takes to close, including twist and lie. There is no "be a good citizen" or "be nice for the future". It's do the slick talk, close, and move on to the next client aka victim. It's essentially become an extortion scheme. But since clients can be presumed to be savvy enough to stand up for themselves or take appropriate legal advice, it's -as far as I know- legal. Doesn't make it right though.
There are good people at Sun, there are good people at MySQL, and there are even good Sales people at Sun/MySQL. But MySQL AB regarded it was valid tactics ("necessary freedom to do their work" was what VP Kaj told me when I raised concern about tactics employed by Louis Fahrberger and Kerry Ancheta), and while Sun explicitly stating that this was not how it wanted to conduct its business, it has continued. It's very difficult to change what's essentially corporate policy. Specifically when the renumeration method for sales encourages (I won't say necessitates) it. And thus I no longer direct anyone to a MySQL sales person; it wouldn't be a fair thing to do to a fellow human being.
Hence my opinion that dual licensing needs to go, from all parts of the server. Otherwise this will not stop. Having the BSD client library by Eric Day is fabulous both for licensing and for its nice design, but unfortunately it hasn't made the sales problem go away yet.
Back in the day there was an assertion in the MySQL internals PDF with respect to the license of any client library created after reading that doc. The PDF has been replaced by HTML and I don't see that claim anymore. Does anyone remember this? It is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20051224102135/dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/lic...
Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release your program as GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need clarification of these terms or if you need to ask about alternative arrangements.
Hi Mark
On 04/09/2009, at 9:25 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
Back in the day there was an assertion in the MySQL internals PDF with respect to the license of any client library created after reading that doc. The PDF has been replaced by HTML and I don't see that claim anymore. Does anyone remember this? It is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20051224102135/dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/lic...
Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release your program as GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need clarification of these terms or if you need to ask about alternative arrangements.
Ye I remember it. I think I helped make it disappear, when I spotted it. Earlier instances were in the main docs and the website and had been cleaned up long before; the Internals stuff was published later.
David and Monty tell me that FSF actually agrees with the above to a degree, but I don't think it's a viable position. Declaring that a protocol is GPL is not something you want to base a business on. The counter argument is simple: if a protocol equates to linking, that means that Internet Explorer is linked to Apache. The defence rests ;-)
Cheers, Arjen.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 2:20 AM, Arjen Lentz wrote:
Hi Mark
On 04/09/2009, at 9:25 AM, MARK CALLAGHAN wrote:
Back in the day there was an assertion in the MySQL internals PDF with respect to the license of any client library created after reading that doc. The PDF has been replaced by HTML and I don't see that claim anymore. Does anyone remember this? It is here: http://web.archive.org/web/20051224102135/dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/en/lic...
Because this is a GPL protocol, any product which uses it to connect to a MySQL server, or to emulate a MySQL server, or to interpose between any client and server which uses the protocol, or for any similar purpose, is also bound by the GPL. Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release your program as GPL. Contact MySQL AB if you need clarification of these terms or if you need to ask about alternative arrangements.
Ye I remember it. I think I helped make it disappear, when I spotted it. Earlier instances were in the main docs and the website and had been cleaned up long before; the Internals stuff was published later.
David and Monty tell me that FSF actually agrees with the above to a degree, but I don't think it's a viable position. Declaring that a protocol is GPL is not something you want to base a business on. The counter argument is simple: if a protocol equates to linking, that means that Internet Explorer is linked to Apache. The defence rests ;-)
A very good point. It shows that the position is untenable.
-- Paul McCullagh PrimeBase Technologies www.primebase.org www.blobstreaming.org pbxt.blogspot.com
Hi Arjen,
Thanks for giving us the inside on that one. It has been a point of confusion for me, and I have read the GPL a few times to try to figure it out.
In the meantime I am certain that my understanding is correct, that there is nothing illegal about shipping mysqld with a closed source program (as long as you don't link any part of the MySQL code).
And now that Sun themselves are maintaining a BSD client library, that pretty much clears up the question of whether that is legal as well (i.e. none of this, as discussed by Mark and yourself, the protocol is GPL, therefore a client library must be GPL as well).
On Sep 4, 2009, at 1:09 AM, Arjen Lentz wrote:
Hi Paul
On 03/09/2009, at 10:54 PM, Paul McCullagh wrote:
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.
You're legally correct (apart from libmysqld type apps that link in the entire server) but that's not how it's been sold for the last 5 years. The sales people's definition of "embedding" is not the same as what you and I see. They also futz with the definition of linking, and do some scare-mongering on IP risk (see, someone is making money -indirectly- off the SCO mess ;-) The result is that they have clients that purchased licenses that didn't need them, for various reasons.
In 2007-2008 they even made the creator of an independent client library pay for interacting with the server; again that was done on the basis of risk. When I found out at the MySQL conf I slapped MySQL legal (I was already external) and told 'em if I ever saw it again I'd be quite public about it. They knew fulwell that there was no legal basis, and admitted as much. But it's happened since, this year in fact. So despite sane and conscientious lawyers, the fun continues. Revenue comes first.
With "risk" as the validation force, the sales attitude will not chance until that leverage no longer exists anywhere in the server. The sales people run on commission and work with quarterly goals; they will do whatever it takes to close, including twist and lie. There is no "be a good citizen" or "be nice for the future". It's do the slick talk, close, and move on to the next client aka victim. It's essentially become an extortion scheme. But since clients can be presumed to be savvy enough to stand up for themselves or take appropriate legal advice, it's -as far as I know- legal. Doesn't make it right though.
There are good people at Sun, there are good people at MySQL, and there are even good Sales people at Sun/MySQL. But MySQL AB regarded it was valid tactics ("necessary freedom to do their work" was what VP Kaj told me when I raised concern about tactics employed by Louis Fahrberger and Kerry Ancheta), and while Sun explicitly stating that this was not how it wanted to conduct its business, it has continued. It's very difficult to change what's essentially corporate policy. Specifically when the renumeration method for sales encourages (I won't say necessitates) it. And thus I no longer direct anyone to a MySQL sales person; it wouldn't be a fair thing to do to a fellow human being.
Hence my opinion that dual licensing needs to go, from all parts of the server. Otherwise this will not stop. Having the BSD client library by Eric Day is fabulous both for licensing and for its nice design, but unfortunately it hasn't made the sales problem go away yet.
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
-- Paul McCullagh PrimeBase Technologies www.primebase.org www.blobstreaming.org pbxt.blogspot.com
Hi Paul
On 04/09/2009, at 7:10 PM, Paul McCullagh wrote:
Thanks for giving us the inside on that one. It has been a point of confusion for me, and I have read the GPL a few times to try to figure it out.
Oh look the GPL and its FAQ sorts out most, and my article on the dev.mysql.com site from long ago was so clear and honest that Zack (VP Marketing) at the time had to protect it (and me ;-) against sales.
In the meantime I am certain that my understanding is correct, that there is nothing illegal about shipping mysqld with a closed source program (as long as you don't link any part of the MySQL code).
Correct, but again that's also one of the cases where a salesperson will fuzz and "suggest" you get licenses anyway.
And now that Sun themselves are maintaining a BSD client library, that pretty much clears up the question of whether that is legal as well (i.e. none of this, as discussed by Mark and yourself, the protocol is GPL, therefore a client library must be GPL as well).
Yea that whole "protocol is GPL" can be safely ignored. GPL is for code, not specs. The clients sales talk to have no clue about BSD client lib or such details, so it does not really change any opportunity. Most unfortunate, I wish it did. But at least the clueful gang out there can now use BSD client library and not complain about evil MySQL licensing. That is good.
Cheers, Arjen.
On Sep 4, 2009, at 1:09 AM, Arjen Lentz wrote:
Hi Paul
On 03/09/2009, at 10:54 PM, Paul McCullagh wrote:
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.
You're legally correct (apart from libmysqld type apps that link in the entire server) but that's not how it's been sold for the last 5 years. The sales people's definition of "embedding" is not the same as what you and I see. They also futz with the definition of linking, and do some scare-mongering on IP risk (see, someone is making money -indirectly- off the SCO mess ;-) The result is that they have clients that purchased licenses that didn't need them, for various reasons.
In 2007-2008 they even made the creator of an independent client library pay for interacting with the server; again that was done on the basis of risk. When I found out at the MySQL conf I slapped MySQL legal (I was already external) and told 'em if I ever saw it again I'd be quite public about it. They knew fulwell that there was no legal basis, and admitted as much. But it's happened since, this year in fact. So despite sane and conscientious lawyers, the fun continues. Revenue comes first.
With "risk" as the validation force, the sales attitude will not chance until that leverage no longer exists anywhere in the server. The sales people run on commission and work with quarterly goals; they will do whatever it takes to close, including twist and lie. There is no "be a good citizen" or "be nice for the future". It's do the slick talk, close, and move on to the next client aka victim. It's essentially become an extortion scheme. But since clients can be presumed to be savvy enough to stand up for themselves or take appropriate legal advice, it's -as far as I know- legal. Doesn't make it right though.
There are good people at Sun, there are good people at MySQL, and there are even good Sales people at Sun/MySQL. But MySQL AB regarded it was valid tactics ("necessary freedom to do their work" was what VP Kaj told me when I raised concern about tactics employed by Louis Fahrberger and Kerry Ancheta), and while Sun explicitly stating that this was not how it wanted to conduct its business, it has continued. It's very difficult to change what's essentially corporate policy. Specifically when the renumeration method for sales encourages (I won't say necessitates) it. And thus I no longer direct anyone to a MySQL sales person; it wouldn't be a fair thing to do to a fellow human being.
Hence my opinion that dual licensing needs to go, from all parts of the server. Otherwise this will not stop. Having the BSD client library by Eric Day is fabulous both for licensing and for its nice design, but unfortunately it hasn't made the sales problem go away yet.
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
-- Paul McCullagh PrimeBase Technologies www.primebase.org www.blobstreaming.org pbxt.blogspot.com
participants (4)
-
Arjen Lentz -
Henrik Ingo -
MARK CALLAGHAN -
Paul McCullagh