The Ups and Downs of MySQL AB

Wannabe Code Monkey writes "Forbes has an article about a recent MySQL deal with SCO and the reaction from the open source community: "It's been a rough week for Marten Mickos, the chief executive of open source database maker MySQL AB. First his most dreaded rival, Oracle acquired a company that supplies a key piece of MySQL's software, a move that could make life difficult for Uppsala, Sweden-based MySQL, which has the most popular open source database. If that wasn't bad enough, Mickos is being denounced as a traitor by noisy fanatics in the open source software community because last month he dared to make a deal with SCO Group, a company reviled by fans of Linux and other open source software.""

Re:Confused about licensing

[BVis]

If taking SCO's money is what keeps the product viable, and if the final product is still F/OSS, who really gives a hoot? SCO's money spends just as easy as anything else, and the OSS community hasn't lost anything.

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes. Businesses sometimes have to be practical at the expense of muddying the moral waters. I'm sure that if they could have avoided even taking SCO's calls they would have, but taking the money enables them to be a going concern.

Besides, the more SCO spends, the faster they will inevitably go out of business, so that can only be a good thing, right?

Re:Confused about licensing

[team99parody]

The problem is that MySQL's business depended on a dual-licensing model where they selling a proprietary-licensed version of MySQL. Sure, they could keep using the GPL'd InnoDB in the GPL'd version of MySQL; but they can not incorporate the GPL'd InnoDB in the proprietary MySQL.

Ironically, if Oracle insisted that future supported versions of InnoDB only be released as a GPL'd work - it could be one of the greates things for MySQL-the-GPL'd-product and one of the worst things to MySQL-the-company.

INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[backslashdot]

I don't give a damn about his points, they are irrelevant.

Since SCO paid money to MySQL and offered development assistance to MySQL .. How do we know they will not try to pull a stunt of saying MySQL stole ideas or misappropriated their money to incorporate new features into MySQL?

This is my biggest concern. I no longer feel safe using MySQL. There is now a risk of getting sued by SCO down the line. Anyone who thinks this is not far fetched .. so is the Linux suit .. and once they lose that they need another scam to pump up their stock. Sorry they had to sign a deal with the devil. This company SCO has declared in the past that they don't think the GPL is a legally valid document. To me it's simply not worth it to deal with the hassle. Honestly as much as I hate their companies I rather use Oracle *puke* or Microsoft SQL Server *vomit* than MySQL at this point, because i dont have to worry about being sued.

Fortunately we don't have to choose commercial because we have great alternative open source databases we can use. Sorry MySQL it's time for us to say goodbye.

Doesn't worry me much

[g_dunn]

If the community decides MySQL is now the work of the devil, it's not like there aren't other solutions out there, among them just using current MySQL versions. The project will just branch off from the last open source release before the switch to Evil Commercialization (TM). The license does support this, doesn't it? I must confess, I'm not exactly sure what license MySQL uses for it's releases.

There are also plenty of other SQL options out there. Postgres is one I use for various things, and I've found it to be more powerful and more effecient than MySQL. The only drawback is that alot of apps out of the box don't support it.

Of course, that would change if everyone stopped using MySQL.

That's one thing I love about open source: The power of choice

Re:INDEMNITY? Will SCO sue us some day?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why go with either big n expensive monsters?

Oracle is a huge monstrosity which pretty much should only be used when nothing else will do (and it works well in those cases)

MS SQL Svr works OK in some microsoft environments too (even if not /.'ers like it - mainly it's because it's a MS product), it's still a solution that works very well for a lot of places (it gets far too much criticism on here - just like anything MS made). However, it's not the universal solution to everything.

PostgreSQL lately is getting more popular. It's very good (better than all but perhaps Oracle/MSSQL/DB2), and the price is right :) Even with the v5 features in MySQL, I have no plans to make use of it. It's not just licensing/IP concerns, it's always been a data integrity thing, lack of features (which are starting to appear) and such. The only reason I can see to go with it is that lots of cheap "LAMP" hosting exists and lots of PHP apps (forums and what not) will run on that pretty much out of the box (it's easy and cheap).

Of course there's lots more alternatives (I've given a try to Matisse lately). But PostgreSQL is really amazing. I'm planning on making changes to my .Net code to use it - not exclusively - but as well as MS SQL. It makes sense if I want it to run on Mono too - why use MS SQL then? Or companies that us IIS/ASP.Net can host that way, and not have to buy MS SQL server if they don't need it (expensive) and run PostgreSQL instead (yes, I'm also aware of MSDE/SQL Server Express - which works quite well in many cases).

Re:a key piece ??

[CodeRx]

The purchase of Innobase by Oracle is a big problem for MySQL AB. If they really want to be a grown-up database vendor, they are going to have to eventually write their own MVCC backend. And they can't easily fork off the GPL InnoDB as they make the vast amount of their money by selling non-GPL licenses of MySQL.

There are other backends for MySQL, but MyISAM doesn't work well with multiple readers+writers due to table locking / lack of MVCC, doesn't offer transactions, etc - and the BDB backend, the closest backend to InnoDB feature-wise is still not considered production quality after many many years.

From what I have seen, InnoDB has become the more popular table handler for new projects and is definately the table handler MySQL AB promotes the most. MyISAM tends to be relegated to mostly read-only tables and legacy use. I really like MySQL's concept of being able to use the right tool for the job when it comes to table handlers, but one of their best tools just got swiped by the 1000lb gorilla next-door! (Oracle may still let them license InnoDB commercially, but can stop at anytime)

Your comment on Postgresql is spot on, and with postgres getting so much easier for new users to get into (auto vacuum, native windows support), Postgresql's complete lack of annoying licensing issues, etc - things still look good for open source databases.

Re:Confused about licensing

[toddbu]

We don't live in a world of moral absolutes.

Agreed. But when SCO starts making money through this partnership and then turns around and uses that cash to attack the same community that SCO despises, does that make any sense?

SCO not only burned bridges, they set the entire landscape on fire. For a leading player in the F/OSS movement to then hook up with them is very disturbing. Should we expect MySQL developers to suddenly be paid by SCO? What would SCO expect in return?

When I heard the news, I sent an email to MySQL telling them that I thought they were treading on very dangerous ground. If MySQL was surprised by the reaction of the community then maybe they really don't understand their base of support. I kind of feel that way anyway, since last I looked the only way to give them any money is to buy a license. I'd gladly click on a "Donate using PayPal" link and have suggested that they provide a paid club that people can sign up for to help support the cause, but so far neither has appeared.

Guys please...

[Spy der Mann]

MySQL AB (the company behind MySQL) will just modify some code to add SCO Unix support. I mean, MySQL has windows support, Apache has Windows support, and Windows is "teh evil", so?

A much more important matter is Oracle buying InnoBase. (hint: InnoBase != MySQL AB). But then again, InnoDB is GPL. So, as long as they're GPL, we can still use them for GPL products.

Now the REALLY scary thing is this dual licensing stuff and MySQL requiring you to buy a license for MySQL if your product is not GPL. I'm still confused regarding the legal interpretation of it, this is a very scary issue, and the /. crowd remains silent about this. So, they're not scandalized about this dual licensing issue and the touchy circumstances , and what "linking" means regarding this (any legal info would be appreciated). But oh, MySQL modifies some code to add SCO Unix support, and the world as we know it is disappearing suddenly?.

I don't give a **** of what MySQL AB does with SCO (the GPL won't change, will it?). What worries me is the future of InnoDB and if i'll be able to use a MySQL client in my non-gpl'ed, for-profit (i.e. to earn a living) C++ or Python software without having to fear lawsuits from MySQL AB...

In fact, I think there should be an article on this subject (not that I've STFW'ed, but links would be appreciated).