tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post7798166331950700215..comments2024-03-02T07:39:03.908+02:00Comments on Monty says: Thoughts about Dual-licensing Open Source softwareMontyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06049512911785594864noreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-66978866384919426972010-02-21T16:49:43.041+02:002010-02-21T16:49:43.041+02:00Do you know if I have a library or framework under...Do you know if I have a library or framework under the GPL license and someone builds a proprietary software(custom web site) for just 1 customer, and hands over the source to this customer, can we say he is distributing the framework ? I mean in this situation do I have a right to ask him to publish the source for everyone or to buy a commercial license from me ?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11050716937301311455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-10190201504199565422010-01-07T02:11:59.822+02:002010-01-07T02:11:59.822+02:00I'm less worried about Oracle buggering MySQL ...I'm less worried about Oracle buggering MySQL than most. First, if Oracle creates a next generation version that is closed source, then a strong and very large community will assuredly branch off using the GNU GPL version.<br /><br />Second, if Oracle follows the model that other 'commercial support of OSS' organizations are succeeding with, they could be very instrumental in helping MySQL become even more successful through 24/7 support line, quality assurance, centralized product management, and training/support/materials resources. These would be fee-based products and services, just like other successful OSS support companies have been offering.<br /><br />The third notion is that more database applications are going to be emerging as strong competitors to MySQL in the coming years. And that is good for the marketplace. MySQL is awesome, but its far from perfect!<br /><br />Look, ORCL can't do any worse for MySQL than SUN has...Joe Bachanahttp://www.databasepublish.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-62028402602727723592009-08-10T23:37:15.521+03:002009-08-10T23:37:15.521+03:00Via archive.org, one can see that the default OEM ...Via archive.org, one can see that the default OEM agreement included restrictions on modifying the source since at least June 2005.Dean Ellishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06174379039499808799noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-34754888738105776972009-08-10T17:17:57.261+03:002009-08-10T17:17:57.261+03:00In response to Mark:
If you use the standard OEM ...In response to Mark:<br /><br />If you use the standard OEM agreement, you can't use any non default storage engines, you can't fix bugs yourself or ask anyone to fix the bugs for you. You can get a separate support contract from Sun and hope that they fix the bugs you report in the version that you bought the EOM contract for.<br /><br />I don't think there is a reason to limit an OEM agreement of Open Source software to a particlar versions as if you are all; It's gets too hard to define what changes you can apply or not apply without having to change the version number yourself. I think it's a better business model when you combine Dual-licensing with a separate support offering. This will allow you to get the money from the customer over time when he uses the product for new things instead of trying to get the customer to pay over and over for almost the same code (just because he wants to have the latest bug fixes that is just in the latest release)...Montyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049512911785594864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-63339493783024611582009-08-10T17:12:51.808+03:002009-08-10T17:12:51.808+03:00In response to Sheeri:
Please read my post/commen...In response to Sheeri:<br /><br />Please read my post/comment again; There is no FUD involved, only facts. I did not say that it was Sun who has made the OEM license as restricted as it's now; I just said that, contrary to what Kaj implied, that I was not part in doing such a change.<br /><br />When it comes to Sun, the only thing that is clear is the OEM license has been changed after Sun bought MySQL (just check the date in the license) and Sun has thus approved of the current content of the license.<br /><br />The main point is however not if the change was done before or after Sun bought MySQL. The important thing is that the current OEM license for MySQL is something that in my mind is unacceptable when doing Dual-licensing on Open Source software. I think that people contributing code to an Open Source project should be aware of how they code are used and why it's important to know this.<br /><br />I know that Sun is not the only company that is doing this wrong. However, now when the Oracle / Sun deal gets a lot of attention, it's important to know what Sun is doing so that we can help DOJ to and the EU commission to understand better where MySQL stands now and what they should do to ensure that MySQL stays free in the future. For this to happen, we need to be able to discuss things openly, instead of staying silent. This makes it difficult, since any criticism against Sun can always be called FUD, but anyone in the MySQL community must be allowed to have an opinion and to talk about it in public - that is how Open Source works after all. You can spread more FUD by not saying anything than by being transparent!<br /><br />A final word about Monty Program. Our business model targets those who use the GPL version of MySQL (or MariaDB). We don't have a self interest in this topic. Sure if things were different, maybe we could do some other business too, but things are what they are. The only reason to bring this up for public discussion was that we were made aware of these problems by people affected by them. After publishing this we have also got feedback from other leaders in the community, that told us they did not know about this and they did indeed assume dual licensing worked differently and were thankful for the blog post.Montyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049512911785594864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-5751077832833485742009-08-10T02:08:13.314+03:002009-08-10T02:08:13.314+03:00Thanks for the informative blog post, Monty. I thi...Thanks for the informative blog post, Monty. I think it's time for my company and myself to get away from MySQL, before Sun/Oracle decides to destroy it further.<br />Since PostgreSQL is the other major supported OSS DB, along with it's BSD license, that seems like a vastly better option. I don't need nor want commercial support, but Legal disagrees with me. Fortunately, PostgreSQL doesn't do support, they leave it up to other companies. Good luck with MariaDB!Kamilionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17989033559273222154noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-85514632762614748372009-08-07T21:10:34.326+03:002009-08-07T21:10:34.326+03:00Monty, I think you're spreading FUD. You admi...Monty, I think you're spreading FUD. You admit "I don't know when things changed (at least I was never consulted or even informed about it)" but you're spreading *FEAR* that Sun changed the OEM license.<br /><br />You don't actually know that Sun changed it.<br /><br />I think it would be best if you retracted the part of the post that slams Sun for changing the license, since you don't know that Sun actually changed it.Sheeri K. Cabralhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13990877688502800403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-32207645121314910172009-08-07T18:04:20.201+03:002009-08-07T18:04:20.201+03:00Does the OEM agreement allow the use of plugins? D...Does the OEM agreement allow the use of plugins? Does that include storage engine plugins?<br /><br />How do you get bug fixes under this license? Is that covered when you also buy a support contract?<br /><br />I understand the need to limit the agreement to a particular release as there should be different prices for a customer who only wants a license for 5.0.84 versus someone who wants a perpetual license for all future releases of MySQL. Without such a limit, it is not as easy to define the difference between fixing a bug, using the Percona patch, and upgrading to new versions of official MySQL.<br /><br />However, I also think that opportunities are being squandered by Sun. If their agreements preclude external developers from having a chance at making money, then I suspect that many of those external developers will stop contributing via the CLA/SCA.Mark Callaghanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09590445221922043181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-90553877717045877792009-08-07T01:29:11.170+03:002009-08-07T01:29:11.170+03:00In response to Kaj's comment that 'Nothing...In response to Kaj's comment that 'Nothing has changed':<br /><br />The current MySQL OEM license was updated September 2008, after MySQL was bought by Sun. I don't know how the previous copy of the OEM license looked, but I do know that when I was part of deciding the OEM licensing scheme in MySQL Ab, it was very liberal (as described in my blog). I don't know when things changed (at least I was never consulted or even informed about it), but I know that the current one does not match my principles of how to do dual-licensing of Open Source software.<br /><br />As you, Kaj, should know, one of my basic principles in doing business is that one should never write or propose an agreement that you would never want to receive or sign yourself. It should be more than clear to you that the current OEM agreement is, for me, not such a document.<br /><br />As my blog already describes, the current commercial MySQL license does not follow the "industry standard" of dual-licensing (where did you get this idea?); MySQL Ab were much more open in the beginning (and for a longer time than the current limitations have existed) and other dual-licensed project are much more open. It's also clearly not what people expect from an Open Source project as it seriously limits other peoples possibilities to work, use, and do business around the product. I have gotten lots of comments about this, so that part is easily verifiable.<br /><br />I strongly disagrees with the notion that you can have <b>commercial rules for commercial license, GPL rules for a GPL license</b>. People donate code in to a product because they are using it and intend to recommend and use it in the future. If the commercial license is not agreeable to them, there is no reason for them to donate time and effort to help the project. Why help someone that doesn't understand your needs and is working against you?<br /><br />Because of that, I strongly recommend anyone doing dual-licensing take their users and contributors into account when defining how they dual-license their software. It's to everyone's benefit to have a liberal dual-licensing policy to create a working developer ecosystem around products that benefit a large number of people.Montyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049512911785594864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-28731220386855020162009-08-06T23:43:53.253+03:002009-08-06T23:43:53.253+03:00About what Monty Program Ab could Dual-license:
O...About what Monty Program Ab could Dual-license:<br /><br />Over time we at Monty Program Ab will produce a lot of code, tools and extensions for MariaDB and other products that could be dual licensed. I want to keep the options open to dual license these.<br /><br />It's true that we can't dual license MariaDB as such (as part of it is owned by Sun). This doesn't however stop anyone from buying a license from Sun for the MySQL part and then buy a license from us for the MariaDB part.<br /><br />The same is true for MySQL/MariaDB storage engine vendors and those companies that provides Dual-licensed extensions to MySQL/MariaDB.Montyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06049512911785594864noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-42320627336684609392009-08-05T20:18:11.769+03:002009-08-05T20:18:11.769+03:00What exactly is your new company going to dual li...What exactly is your new company going to dual license? Unless I'm mistaken, you can't dual license the Mysql fork, because you are using the GPL license from Sun/Mysql. <br /><br />Are there additional utilities and such that are going to be independent enough of the Mysql codebase to allow a dual license?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16957222317299096782noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-36850598165513540822009-08-05T16:47:50.321+03:002009-08-05T16:47:50.321+03:00From Sun's perspective, nothing has changed in...From Sun's perspective, <b>nothing has changed</b> in our Dual Licensing implementation <b>for many years</b>. It has been substantially the same since you Monty were actively part of fine tuning the first principles that you and David established.<br /><br />The restrictions of the commercial MySQL license are industry standard and talk about what others can do with MySQL code. Contributors under both SCA and CLA grant rights to us, but continue to own their own code and may thus do whatever they please with it -- including releasing and using it under the rules of the GPL. Those are all basic tenets of dual licensing (<b>commercial rules for commercial licensees, GPL rules for GPL licensees</b>) which I believe are widely understood and accepted.Kaj Arnöhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04670256071599163119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-57231729012611993542009-08-05T09:18:34.279+03:002009-08-05T09:18:34.279+03:00Dear Monty,
thanks for the good blog post. You ha...Dear Monty,<br /><br />thanks for the good blog post. You have been inspired by Ghostscript's licensing model for MySQL - and so have we been inspired, but by the (old) MySQL licensing model when it ca,e to choosing the right model for our Open Source CMS (papaya CMS).<br /><br />However, I feel that the current strategy of Sun might be doing harm to MySQL's licensing revenue. They are not what you'd expect from a company that has so much backing and from the open source scene (and has also gained so much from that community).<br /><br />Let's hope that Sun simply needs some time and experience to find out that this is not what their clients (well, the MySQL clients) would expect...<br /><br />Best regards from Germany,<br />AndréUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03261929337083822621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5552895785228669482.post-4466659101041640222009-08-05T03:27:04.366+03:002009-08-05T03:27:04.366+03:00Interesting... I reckon a few companies won't ...Interesting... I reckon a few companies won't be buying an OEM license from Sun if they aren't allowed to modify the source. I know of several companies which are using custom storage engines.<br />The GPL would suit them just fine anyways since they are not distributing source code nor binaries.Antonyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13094362409916524291noreply@blogger.com