Some, quite legitimately wonder if certain wording on the MySQL site might indicate the company is backing away from Free Software, and the GNU General Public License. OfB wanted to know, so Timothy R. Butler contacted MySQL AB, the FSF and others to find out; read what he found at OfB.biz
The MySQL License Question
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
who cares? use postgres. 8.0 beta’s out now, anyone still using mysql should be shot.
Indeed
postgres and mysql – its the classic story of the hare and te rabbit. mysql was quick but didnt do much.
postgres did things well but only now has its spread its wings. its design is modular, its has long supplied things like jdbc drivers, stored procedures, … remember when redhat backed postgres… that wasn’t a stupid move.
Stay on topic, or risk death
At least there is no question about PG’s license.
Well I hope they don’t try the same thing xFree86 did, it could be there ruin (in respekt to their reputation in the Opensource community).
This article makes me feel a lot better about the MySQL license issue. I too had read their interpretation of the GPL, and did not agree with it. I still think they are pushing it too far, but seem pretty open about the fact that it is ‘just’ talk.
They have their idea of what is breaking the spirit of the GPL, but don’t even have it in their minds to litigate over that. And I believe them – something I couldn’t say of many companies. Since I don’t believe their take on the GPL would fly anyway, this pretty much removes all my worries. I.e., now I don’t have to worry about paying to defend an action, even one I am convinced is acceptable.
As for the Postgres issue… heh. I just chose the MySQL boat several years ago because, at the time, Postgres had a couple big ‘gotchas’ and higher administration requirements. I think Postgres has been a fine choice more recently, especially since v7, but databases are too important to go hopping from one to another without provocation. I’ve made my bed, and am perfectly happy with it.
use postgres. 8.0 beta’s out now, anyone still using mysql should be shot.
And anyone using beta software on a production machine should be shot. I’ll continue using mySQL 4 thanks.
Firebird also free
http://firebird.sourceforge.net/
Get out of MySQL !
Some, quite legitimately wonder if certain wording in OSNews.com articles is correct.
MySQL and PHP are in some aspects alike, in that: a) they are essentially “controlled” by one commercial entity; and b) the company tries to sell some part of the software commercially (e.g. the PHP compiler and cache and the embedded MySQL engine — which is, because of GPL, pretty much useless for commercial applications).
They kind of deserve each other. 🙂
For people who want more freedom there are always alternatives such as PostgreSQL and Ruby/Python/Perl.
But let’s not condemn Zend or MySQL AB (or Trolltech, etc) for trying to make money off their products. Everybody is entitled to that.
Oh, I forgot one more thing. Another important aspect where MySQL and PHP (and Windows, Java, and now GNOME) are alike is that they are designed with “world domination” or “largest user base” in mind. They try to satisfy the average developer, which is of course the majority of the population. PHP, for example, is designed so it can run with various webservers, in various mode (CGI, module, safe), so basically they can run anywhere. Plus it’s easy to learn, has familiar syntax, and comes with all the most used features out of the box. MySQL is also designed to be fast and forgiving, so it doesn’t frustrate new users.
There’s nothing wrong with “world domination”, but this makes the product not very suitable to some people like hackers or experienced developers. On the other hand, if you look at tools like PostgreSQL or Ruby, you can see that they are clearly created “from developers, for developers”. Plus, you can do pretty much anything with Postgres & Ruby, which is an attraction to “great hackers” (with reference to Paul Graham).
Anything that is mainstream – such as PHP, MySQL or Java – is not “cool” enough for some of the more elitist hackers out there. What about ease-of-use, time to market or developer mindshare? These are all real-world requirements, especially in the difficult IT market we have today. For the vast majority of applications, an “average” tool like MySQL or PHP performs the job well enough.
>What about ease-of-use, time to market or developer >mindshare?
That certanly counts. But MySQL got popular when its libraries were LGPL, now they are GPL. I really do not
like the idea of either buying a license from MySQL AB or GPL
my apps(as it’s rather hard to talk to the database without
the client libraries.)
…LAMP woul become LAPP!
Seriously, though, I have been considering starting to design sites using Postgre instead of My…mostly because of the great features (ok, views) that Postgre offers.
What I understand of the article is that you should buy a commercial license if you use MySQL in a business setting but that they won’t go after you if you don’t… (as of today of course).
I’m not a lawyer and don’t want to become one and I don’t want to risk anything just for using MySQL.
Thus I’ve stopped using MySQL and switch to Postgresql which is really and completely free. I’m pretty hapy so far.
Well, MySQL using the GPL instead of the LGPL is proof that open-source is not always a viable business model. After all, money has to be made somewhere down the line.
I think that MySQL’s dual licensing is a reasonable compromise. One the one hand, the source is truly open, while on the other hand you are required to pay a licensing fee if you want to deploy it commercially. You cannot expect to have everything for free, especially not if you’re doing commercial development.
“Well, MySQL using the GPL instead of the LGPL is proof that open-source is not always a viable business model.”
No one every claimed that it always is. Nothing is ever an ALWAYS. Proprietary is not always a viable business model either. Open source and proprietary are just different models requiring different forms of business.
AFAIK, MySQL server has always been GPL. The controversy has come from them switching their client libraries to GPL from LGPL. It has always been legal for you to connect LGPL client libraries to a GPL server as long as the method of connection was not linking or anything like it, as in the MySQL case.
If you want to write closed-source products that connect to MySQL the same way, you have three choices: Pay MySQL for a commercial license to their client libraries, make replacement client libraries that communitcate using the same protocol or use existing replacement libraries, or use an intermediate driver layer like unixODBC. MySQL doesn’t like the third choice (and it’s slower) but there is nothing they can do about the second. For instance, if you program in REBOL you can use DocKimbal’s BSD-licensed MySQL scheme legally, and it’s faster than the commercial scheme based on MySQL’s client libs.
On the other hand, by making the license of the client libraries the same as the server, theoretically MySQL can now add new ways of connecting the client and server on the same computer that would be closer to linking structurally, and much faster in use. MS does this with SQL Server. Then there would be an advantage to MySQL’s client libs that third-party drivers couldn’t match.
Firebird database:
http://www.ibphoenix.com