Slashdot Log In
MySQL Ends Enterprise Server Source Tarballs
Posted by
Zonk
on Thu Aug 09, 2007 05:06 PM
from the new-tactic-in-open-sorcery dept.
from the new-tactic-in-open-sorcery dept.
vboulytchev writes "The folks at MySQL has quietly announced that it will
no longer be distributing the MySQL Enterprise Server source as a tarball. It's been about a year since the split between the paid and free versions of the database project. The Enterprise Server code is still under the GNU General Public License (GPL), and as a result MySQL appears to be making it harder for non-customers to access the source code. 'One of the things that many users worry about is whether they're getting an inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version. Urlocker says that MySQL "wants to make sure the Community version is rock solid," but admitted that the company has introduced features into the Community edition of the software that "[weren't] as robust as we thought, and created some instabilities." Because of that, the company is revising its policies about when features go into the Community releases.'" Update: 08/10 04:56 GMT by CN :While it is slightly harder to get, the source isn't closed by any means, so I updated the title to reflect that.
Related Stories
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
MySQL Ends Enterprise Server Source Tarballs
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 413 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
In related news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Interesting)
The same guys who lied about the suitability of their code for various purposes from day one
The same guys who maintained that ACID was unimportant until the very moment they had it
The same guys who have been setting this up for years with their Project Mayo/DivX Networks style licensing/contribution scheme
You mean they actually went ahead and tried to use shady shenanigans to force developers who have no need for anything from their organization whatsoever beyond a copy of the community developed codebase to pay for access to the codebase?
Wow. What a surprise.
I made a decision to give preference to PostgreSQL over MySQL in my developments... not because of the technical merits involved, but because of the repeatedly demonstrated lack of trustworthiness of the MySQL team.
I didn't expect to see my decision validated in such a rapid and undeniable fashion though.
Just goes to show... technical skill is no substitute for good character or lack thereof.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://ibeentoubuntu.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Monday October 01, @07:28PM)
I propose calling it OurSQL.
Re:In related news (Score:4, Informative)
(Last Journal: Thursday August 18 2005, @08:44AM)
no, I've had enough of your bullshit! take this goddamn article down right fucking now and change the title you worthless fucking excuse for a yellow journalist! For fucksake you READ the goddamn article before you post it, I HOPE.
Fucking immune from moderation troll-assed motherfucker, I will sacrifice my "excellent" karma to bring you down!
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.omnifarious.org/~hopper/ | Last Journal: Tuesday October 02, @12:21PM)
The title does not accurately reflect the summary or the real state of affairs. It is sensationalist in the extreme.
Re:Say what? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://shockandblog.com/blog)
Re:In related news (Score:5, Informative)
Zonk's title isn't even remotely related to the reality of the situation. If I could mod him down, I sure would.
Re:In related news (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://neolicity.blogspot.com/)
Thing is, many people don't understand the GPL. The GPL never said 'you must distribute your source code to everyone'... you can, for example, make private changes and never give them out. In fact, this is explicitly given as an example of an important freedom by Stallman, Moglen, etc. Similarly, you have the freedom to make changes and give them to only a few people; this is exactly what MySQL are doing. Now, the people that do receive the code are free to further distribute it, according to the GPL, and I am sure we will see the code in some manner (compare to CentOS). But MySQL are well within their legal (and moral) rights to have only part of their GPLed code available on their servers in tarball format for anonymous download.
To attack MySQL about this is very unfair.
Re:Account Hacked !! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Tuesday June 06 2006, @01:50PM)
"MYND YOV MOOSE BITES KAN BE PRETTI NASTI"
Hmm.. First Bittorrent (Score:2)
(http://www.nickcatalano.com/)
Whatever THEY want (Score:5, Insightful)
This is actually the tendence that worries me. These days many people (thankfully not everybody) think they have the RIGHT to get everything for free. One bitches because product X is not Open Source (Ohh what a crime!!!). The other bitches because X (which VERY GENEROUSLY was giving many years of hard work to people who don't even write a line of code) is taking their hard work back for Y reasons (yes, making a buck for many years of hard work is not a bad thing , you know)
Another funny thing: I was talking to a man here at work. The man is a a rabious defender of OS. He wouldn't touch a non- OS program, he almost cried when MS made a deal with Novell, he screams how much he hates Photoshop and how great Gimp is (just because is OS)... And guess what? He develops a very good backup solution for databases and he takes good money for it. He was having some difficulties adding features. Knowing how good of an OS supporter he was I had the nerve to suggest to him to open the source of his program. ARE YOU FUCKING MAD?- he said. DO YOU KNOW HOW HARD I WORK FOR THIS SHIT? AND I WOULD GIVE IT TO THE DOGS?....
Moral of the story. If you work hard for your work and wnat to share , so be it. If you want to get your work back iand this is posible, just do it. You have the right. people will bitch, people will call you a shit, people will hate you... And yet, the majority of them won't share a shit either giving the oportunity.
Making money is not a crime folks....
not quite (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.zines.com/)
It's like getting divorced and your ex gets only the second floor and the garage.
Re:not quite (Score:4, Insightful)
But MySQL AB owns the copyright on all the code, regardless of the contributor, correct? That means they can close the source, and they don't have to ask anyone or comb anything.
Let me be the first to say... (Score:1, Insightful)
And let me be the first to say... (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Sod MySQL, SQLite is the future.
Re:And let me be the first to say... (Score:4, Insightful)
Ooh, look at ME! (Score:2, Funny)
Cha-Ching (Score:2, Interesting)
(http://www.beanleafpress.com/)
Re:Cha-Ching (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @09:21PM)
Yay! (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://drblast.blogspot.com/)
Cheap web hosting, I'm looking at you...
Re:Yay! (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @09:21PM)
Interesting trend (Score:1, Interesting)
The source hasn't gone anywhere. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.hiveminds.org/)
FUD about less profitable product from same ... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://www.wirespring.com/)
This sounds just like the FUD that microsoft guy made by "admitting" that XP has problems in the hopes that people will move to vista.
I think it's best to simply ignore the marketing people. There are no "instabilities" in the stable community version above and beyond the normal cycle of bugs and bugfixes you see in any software.
Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, even the most basic test suite would have easily caught these.
Here are just a few of the major ones:
Bug #28336 [mysql.com]
Bug #28936 [mysql.com]
Re:Rock solid... Far from it unfortunately... (Score:5, Interesting)
Thank goodness I did my homework and selected PostgreSQL and not, as one consultant suggested, MySQL back when we selected the database for our application. I've never had it crash and on the few occasions where it was unceremoniously shutdown (accidental powerdown and such), it's always come right back up with no data loss. And it's just been getting better by leaps and bounds.
They need a name change (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:They need a name change (Score:5, Funny)
Since it's currently in a state after being MySQL, I propose we confuse everybody by calling it PostMySQL.
Official PostgreSQL fanboi thread here :-) (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.how-to-make-a-bomb.eu/ | Last Journal: Monday April 17 2006, @09:30AM)
Yes, it's legal (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.crfh.net/ | Last Journal: Tuesday November 14 2006, @02:47PM)
Re:Yes, it's legal (Score:4, Informative)
This is no big deal. (Score:5, Informative)
The work-around for the community is hinted at here:
"Though MySQL AB will not be distributing the source tarball, Urlocker says that MySQL isn't going to try to stop distribution of Enterprise Server source by others. "If somebody wants to, that's fine. People can distribute it.... "
Getting the source code as a tarball on a public server for everyone is an intellectual exercize for the reader.
I read this as a "We're not going to be hosting for leeches. You want a public server, set your own up"
--
BMO
Re:This is no big deal. (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.silverglass.org/)
Not technically correct. They can limit giving the source code to only their customers if and only if they provide the source code along with the binaries. If they provide the source code seperately, then the GPL requires them to offer the source code to any third party that asks for it for at least 3 years from their last binary distribution. This is because any party who receives the binary is entitled to the source even if they didn't get it directly from MySQL AB.
Re:This is no big deal. (Score:5, Interesting)
And you, Sir, are not entirely correct. I cannot bend over MySQL AB by giving people binaries of MySQL. If you get binaries from me, then *I* must offer the source code *not* MySQL. If MySQL AB no longer offers source to all comers, then it's *my* problem, not theirs.
From GPL V2 (which is what MySQL is using currently)
"b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,"
If I'm distributing version 2 GPLed MySQL, that clause is talking to _me_ and not MySQL AB. The "c" clause gives me an out if I'm noncommercial and I can point to SourceForge or a public server offering MySQL source.
--
BMO
Does this surprise anybody? (Score:1)
Terrible submission (Score:1, Informative)
Makes me glad that RubyForge... (Score:2)
(http://tomcopeland.blogs.com/)
Not closing anything. (Score:1, Informative)
I smell a fork coming soon. (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://timgray.blogspot.com/)
Come on people this is what OSS is all about. forking and starting a new project because the current project leaders became poopwads.
Two ways I can think of to go now... (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/)
or
A general shift to PostgreSQL... seems a lot of people are favoring that route.
I don't care which way it goes, the community will respond and MySQL will become irrelevant.
Bad timing (Score:1)
(Last Journal: Friday June 11 2004, @11:15AM)
GPL Question (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://slashdot.org/ | Last Journal: Wednesday March 10 2004, @11:39PM)
I own the copyright to everything. Can I do this?
(I know it's OT but I don't want to go register on a list just to ask one GPL question.)
Community to MySQL (Score:2)
Really, it's that simple when you have GPL software.
what I wonder is if they are using .... (Score:2)
(http://threeseas.net/ | Last Journal: Friday January 18 2002, @01:44PM)
The GPL was intended to remove such abuses. The GPL v3 is intended to do the same thing but in consideration of the fraud of software patents. But the point is clear, the GPL in general is to prevent abuses.
On the slip side, there is nothing preventing someone who has access to the enterprise version from making it available to the community users. Or would that be considered an abuse of a paying customer?
Reconsidering my Enterprise Order (Score:5, Interesting)
(http://www.ender.com/)
I'm about to deploy 4 MySQL servers for some serious volume and was strongly considering buying into an enterprise package, largely on the strength of their monitoring tool, but now I'm seriously thinking it's time to try Postgres.
Inferior version (Score:3, Informative)
inferior version of MySQL by using the Community version."
They already have SCO, how much more inferior can they get.
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/09/04/17302
Wasnt this predicted? (Score:4, Insightful)
(http://slashdot.org/~nurb432/ | Last Journal: Friday August 27 2004, @03:24PM)
PostgreSQL is still free and more powerful anyway so no great loss.
The new name is... (Score:1)
It's all in the in the marketing (Score:5, Interesting)
CENTSQL ? (Score:1)
Emperial Rule (Score:1)
Enterprise vs. Community (Score:3, Informative)
And we're not the only ones doing so. MySQL had really better re-think the whole thing, whats the point of offering Enterprise when 90% of shops are going to go with the free product.
numbers, zonk, numbers (Score:2, Funny)
(http://dailyrevolution.net/?page_id=643 | Last Journal: Friday November 09, @11:27AM)
The last thing you want to hear about a DBMS (Score:3, Insightful)
This, among other reasons, is why we switched to Postgresql some years ago. MySQL was (is?) not even ANSI SQL compliant, at least when we were struggling with it.
Looks like the Cathedral won! (Score:1)
Hmm... (Score:1)
Where's Marten? (Score:2)
(http://www.ender.com/)
From his earlier comment: [slashdot.org]
Not a surprise. (Score:1)
It's sad to MySQL go downhill so fast. (Score:2)
They say it is to keep too many versions of MySQL from being used, a lie that is so obvious
it would have been better if they hadn't said anything at all.
This, of course, isn't the first time i have begone to wonder about the ethics of the MySQL team,
the first was when they recreated their website, hiding the 'download' section in the 'comunity' section
and even then only after making you click a 'yes i'm a total über geek, i recompile my kernel every DAY!' button.
To me that means that i can no longer trust MySQL, i can no longer trust them to not sink to even lower tactics
to get us away from using MySQL under the GPL. Now i have to fear that they not only will they withhold features as
they already do, but that they will also intentionally introduce bugs and cripple performance just so they can then state
'well, with our NON-GPL commercial Enterprise license, that wouldn't have happened'
I liked MySQL because it was quick to setup and had reliable and scalable performance, i might be able to get
similar performance etc with PostgreSQL, but it will definitely not be simple to do simple things and
it requires constant tweaking and probably the blood of sacrificially slain goat to work reliable performance wise.
Now i might even consider using the 'light' (free) version of SQL Server and Oracle, even with thier limitations,
for many projects they are enough, and for those that aren't, i now at least don't have to explain
how and why MySQL is a 'real' database engine, i can simply say,
'sure, oracle, i can do that, it will cost lot's more, but yea'
Is there hope that some one will take the source as it's now and create a new GPL branch without the
commercial BS?
A good reason to use Postgresql (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think many places would switch to Postgresql, since the administration side is more complex and therefore more costly, but I can see shops weighing the pros and cons of switching to postgresql, since that DB has an excellent reputation.
Been a while coming... (Score:3, Insightful)
(http://aqpeag.blogspot.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday April 21 2007, @05:39AM)
Postgres is a fantastic project. It's very solid, can handle huge transaction/request loads, has concurrent locking etc, from memory supports a large number of different datatypes, and is also very configurable. Even better, it's under what is my own favourite license, the BSD license...so you can do pretty much whatever you want with it.
MySQL will probably continue to have its' place, with people who need the things they're charging for, (presumably support options etc) and I wish the project well.
However, for people like me who don't have a lot of money, MySQL ceased being an entirely legally safe option a while ago.
Seriously, why continue to use MySQL? (Score:2)
Considering the MySQL AB's unusual understanding of the GPL, their goofy dual license, their non-standard implementation of SQL, and their partnership with a company that claims the GPL is illegal (scox); I really have to wonder if MySQL is the way to go anymore.
Stupid comment by an idiot at another site (Score:2)
To illustrate the stupidity one hears in these discussions, one idiot at another OSS site said that nobody should use PostgreSQL - or even test it - because their BSD-style license allowed companies to take the code and use it and not release their proprietary enhancements. This is the sort of stupid fanaticism that gives "free" and OSS software a bad name to anyone with a brain.
These morons don't realize that some licenses were explicitly designed to allow just that - companies to develop their own products on top of OSS. This is a GOOD thing, not a bad thing. Although giving back enhancements to an OSS product to the original project is a benefit to everyone who uses that product, not EVERY enhancement is necessarily worth it and not EVERYBODY in the world needs to be a "free software" developer. It allows OSS products to find their way into more and more products, thus validating the OSS model - even if some companies do not adhere to it strictly. If the alternatives are a company using OSS and not returning improvements to the community vs not using OSS at all, obviously the latter is worse. And that is the choice companies must make.
Whether the former choice has any impact on the development of OSS is another matter entirely. The notion that somehow the entire corporate world is going to "steal" OSS and somehow convert it all to proprietary products and thus "destroy" OSS is utterly ridiculous on the face of it.
This is why Linus opposes the GPLv3 and he is correct to do so. It's the difference between a truly free market and socialism.
MySQL sales practices... (Score:2)
They phoned me up within an hour of downloading the community version and tried to make me afraid of the community version. They hinted that it's less stable than the for-profit version they're selling and that I'd be much happier if I spent the money on the more reliable Enterprise version with their support package.
Yeah, real bad. (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
In addition, have you RTFA? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday December 01 2006, @10:51AM)
Re:In addition, have you RTFA? (Score:5, Funny)
(Last Journal: Friday October 19, @09:21PM)
Re:In addition, have you RTFA? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:1, Informative)
(http://eof.sourceforge.net/)
If they own all the copyrights to the source, they can license it however they want.
Additionally, the requirements to release the source only apply to derivative works. In theory, the original copyright holder could put a binary release under the GPL without providing any source code.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2, Informative)
(Last Journal: Tuesday September 12 2006, @03:31PM)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Informative)
(http://www.silverglass.org/)
If they provide the source code along with the binaries, the GPL considers that to have satisfied their obligations. After that, they're not obliged to give the source code to anybody else. Not even customers.
Now, if they don't provide the source code with the binaries, if customers are obliged to get it separately from the binary package, then the obligation is to provide the source to anybody who asks for it, customer or not, and that obligation lasts for 3 years after the last binary was distributed. Note that if the binaries are available via download, offering the source for download at the same time and from the same page satisfies the GPL's requirement to provide source along with the binaries even if the customer doesn't actually download the source code at the time.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2, Informative)
(http://google.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday October 10, @09:08PM)
AFAIK the IP holder retains the rights to whom it considers "customers" therefor decides whom may access the source based on who has legal rights to the product. Transgaming, RedHat, MySQL, et al.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:1)
(http://webtrotter.com/blog)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:1)
(http://www.infamous.net/)
Because the GPL only requires that you give source to those to whom you give or sell binaries.
Now, they can't prevent those to whom you give or sell binaries from redistributing it...
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2)
(http://www.jsyncmanager.org/ | Last Journal: Friday September 21, @03:50AM)
Well, it appears they are already selling the Enterprise Server. And according to the article summary, they're still making it available to customers who purchase the binaries. As such, they are completely above board in terms of the GPL (remember, with the GPL you only have to make the source available to anyone you give the binaries to. It doesn't specify that you can't charge for the binaries, or that the source has to be made available on the web for anyone to get hold of. Note as well that you also don't have to provide the source with the binaries -- you simply have to make it available upon request in a suitably usable standard form).
Yaz.
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Re:Open Source as a Business Model (Score:1, Interesting)
I work for an open source company and the number of calls we get from people demanding support for something they just downloaded from SourceForge has caused us to provide our paying customers with a different "priority" telephone number.
When we politely tell these people that we require they purchase a support package to receive telephone support, they usually get pissed off and hang up. Some try to convince you that they will buy support if we would *just* help them with this one little problem first, heh.
Don't get me wrong, the business model works, but if you have investors I can understand how they would want to close the source if they feel it would convert some of these non-paying customers into paying ones.
If only companies would look at the long-term and realize that if this free software saved us X-thousands of dollars, its well worth it to spend even 1/10th of the money they saved to support it and ensure its longevity. Unfortunately it doesn't work that way though.
Copyright (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Friday September 24 2004, @07:11PM)
This is a common misconception. You CAN sell GPL code. The GPL specifically allows it. The only thing you must do is provide the source code (in one way or another) and the only thing you can't do is include additional restrictions.
As the other posters have pointed out, the copyright owner has the right to dual license the software (offer the software under more than one license). The GPL is not law, but an open ended contract. It is permission to copy the code if certain conditions are met. This doesn't mean that the copyright owner can give permission under other conditions as well.
On the other hand, who is the copyright owner of patches and bug fixes submitted to them? IANAL, but it would seem to me that this could be a legal problem. For example, Sun requires anybody working on/patching Open Office to have a record on file delegating copyright of patches back to Sun. If MySQL AB doesn't do something like this, how do they plan to fend off lawsuits? (frivolous or legitimate)
Re:You've misread the terms (Score:4, Informative)
(http://www.dakiniband.com/)
Code that was "contributed" doesn't belong to MySQL but to the individual authors. Unless they have something assigning the rights to MySQL (always a possibility since I don't use MySQL I wouldn't know) those copyrights still belong to the authors of that code. In short, they would still need the "official" OK in some form from the authors (ALL of them) of the code. That is why a license change is always something to be avoided where GPL is concerned.
Re:You've misread the terms (Score:5, Informative)
(Last Journal: Monday August 20 2001, @05:42AM)
sun and redhat? (Score:2)
(http://www.liquidshells.net/)
Re:Open Source as a Business Model (Score:1)
(http://www.wackyhq.com/ | Last Journal: Saturday January 07 2006, @09:17PM)
Re:Wait a second.... (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Sunday January 28 2007, @05:20PM)
Yes you have, if you distribute binaries, you are required to provide the source code to the binaries to the entities you have distributed to, but you are not required to provide the source to anyone who merely wants it; and you are not required to do it for free. You can charge a reasonable copying fee, and it's entirely possible to make considerable money off copying fees, considering the horrendous copying fees people have to pay for court transcripts, how far do you think a law suit would get?