Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:04 UTC, submitted by wakeupneo
Databases "MySQL quietly let slip that it would no longer be distributing the MySQL Enterprise Server source as a tarball, not quite a year after the company announced a split between its paid and free versions. While the Enterprise Server code is still under the GNU General Public License, MySQL is making it harder for non-customers to access the source code."
Order by: Score:
PostgreSQL
by jang on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:26 UTC
jang
Member since:
2007-02-03

Well that's it, MySQL just made itself irrelevant in favor of PostgreSQL.

Reply Score: 10

RE: PostgreSQL
by Andre4s on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "PostgreSQL"
Andre4s Member since:
2006-02-10

Have been for a long time in my world!

What I don't really understand is the market support MySQL have. You find MySql databases in places you never expected to find them.

Time for a fork to end this madness.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: PostgreSQL
by Joe User on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:18 UTC in reply to "RE: PostgreSQL"
Joe User Member since:
2005-06-29

Time for a fork to end this madness.

Go register OpenMySQL.org while it's still available.
http://www.whois-search.com/whois/openmysql.org

Just a matter of time before some one forks MySQL. It's not the first time the want to restrict freedom. They already had a license issue a while back.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: PostgreSQL
by MattPie on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:19 UTC in reply to "RE: PostgreSQL"
MattPie Member since:
2006-04-18

What I don't really understand is the market support MySQL have. You find MySql databases in places you never expected to find them.

MySQL is just so freaking *easy* to administer, that's why. Need to move a databse? Just shut the DB daemon down, move the DB files to a new server (with the same version, of course), and start the DB daemon up, and it's done. It does what a basic DB needs to, which happens to be what most tasks require.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: PostgreSQL
by dekernel on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PostgreSQL"
dekernel Member since:
2005-07-07

To be honest, MSSQL is pretty much just as easy. The only extra step is to mount the database on the destination system.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: PostgreSQL
by merkoth on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:41 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PostgreSQL"
merkoth Member since:
2006-09-22

To be honest, MSSQL is pretty much just as easy. The only extra step is to mount the database on the destination system.


While that might be true, the fact that it only runs in Windows-based servers makes it unuseable for a large part of the audience.

MySQL is a great tool, no matter how much people want to put it down comparing it against PostgreSQL. It's more than enough for a large array of applications.

I'm not sure how much of an issue is to make the source code harder to obtain, keeping in mind that, once you get the licence, you receive the full rights to redistribute the binaries and/or the source code as you see fit.

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: PostgreSQL
by WarpKat on Thu 30th Aug 2007 01:36 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: PostgreSQL"
WarpKat Member since:
2006-02-06

"The only extra step is to mount the database on the destination system."

Don't forget the soul part...committing your soul is a step, too...

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: PostgreSQL
by jsight on Wed 29th Aug 2007 15:44 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: PostgreSQL"
jsight Member since:
2005-07-06

MySQL is just so freaking *easy* to administer, that's why. Need to move a databse? Just shut the DB daemon down, move the DB files to a new server (with the same version, of course), and start the DB daemon up, and it's done. It does what a basic DB needs to, which happens to be what most tasks require.


What? You could do the same thing with postgres.

Or you could run pg_dumpall and restore it on the other so that you don't have to worry so much if they are running the same version.

mysql isn't easier to administer than postgres.

Reply Score: 3

RE: PostgreSQL
by zsitvaij on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:37 UTC in reply to "PostgreSQL"
zsitvaij Member since:
2006-06-14
RE: PostgreSQL
by Soulbender on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:56 UTC in reply to "PostgreSQL"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

Only now? It was never a contender for me.
'No need for transactions, just use table locks'. Heh.

Reply Score: 2

RE: PostgreSQL
by milles21 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 14:24 UTC in reply to "PostgreSQL"
milles21 Member since:
2006-11-08

People are making way to much of the issue. It is not as if you can't download Mysql and we are talking about the enterprise edition. MySQL has a right and to change the way you obtain the enterprise code.

Use the community edition develop your apps and the pay for a license for an enterprise version if you need enterprise type support or configurations. If you run a blog you don't need a Enterprise edition if you are running critical business apps then to be honest you should probably be paying for support and using an enterprise version.

It really is not a issue and it is not as if you can not download the source and compile yourself. This seems to only be an issue for people who either don't know how to compile or to lazy.

Damn why is everything a "Time for Fork" why can't you pay for enterprise software if you need enterprise software.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: PostgreSQL
by TechGeek on Wed 29th Aug 2007 14:42 UTC in reply to "RE: PostgreSQL"
TechGeek Member since:
2006-01-14

Its funny that the ones screaming "It's time to fork" are never the ones that actually do the forking..... Cut MySQL some slack. They have a very powerful DB system and they give it away for free.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: PostgreSQL
by shapeshifter on Wed 29th Aug 2007 21:30 UTC in reply to "RE: PostgreSQL"
shapeshifter Member since:
2006-09-19

People are making way to much of the issue. It is not as if you can't download Mysql and we are talking about the enterprise edition. MySQL has a right and to change the way you obtain the enterprise code.

Use the community edition develop your apps and the pay for a license for an enterprise version if you need enterprise type support or configurations. If you run a blog you don't need a Enterprise edition if you are running critical business apps then to be honest you should probably be paying for support and using an enterprise version.

It really is not a issue and it is not as if you can not download the source and compile yourself. This seems to only be an issue for people who either don't know how to compile or to lazy.

Damn why is everything a "Time for Fork" why can't you pay for enterprise software if you need enterprise software.


Bullshit!
This kind of thinking is what makes OSS look bad and untrustworthy.
Do you see the Linux kernel in community and enterprise versions? No? Really? Well, why is that?!
THE ONLY time a project splits into "enterprise" (just another word for "pay up" and community is when they get greedy and want to rake in the money.
And the sad result is that sooner or later the community edition is either neglected or turned into a testing ground. Either way, it becomes junk software and unsuitable for serious use.
The other popular strategy of these fake OSS distributors is the "attribution clause" in the license where you can't really fork it because the license requires you to show some kind of stupid banner of the original company. Sugar CRM does that I think, last time I checked that was the case with them.
The OSS community really needs to put its foot down and say NO to these kind of dual distribution tactics.
And boycott the projects and companies that do that.
That is if we want free software to exist.
Otherwise some day we might wake up and see everything open sourced but only if you buy per user or per computer license or a support contract.

Reply Score: 1

No issue
by progster on Wed 29th Aug 2007 12:54 UTC
progster
Member since:
2005-07-27

Besides their customers (who are actually using the product) I don't think a lot of people were doing anything with the code, so I don't see the issue. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Either way it's their right to only release source code to customers.

Reply Score: 3

RE: No issue
by dylansmrjones on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:44 UTC in reply to "No issue"
dylansmrjones Member since:
2005-10-02

Well, there are those who compile from source ;) - but again, they tend to use the community edition. Besides that - we have postgreSQL.

Reply Score: 2

RE: No issue
by Matt Giacomini on Wed 29th Aug 2007 16:04 UTC in reply to "No issue"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

"Either way it's their right to only release source code to customers."

Under the GPL they are obligated to release the source code to everyone.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: No issue
by trenchsol on Wed 29th Aug 2007 16:55 UTC in reply to "RE: No issue"
trenchsol Member since:
2006-12-07

That is not correct. They have to make source available to parties that receive binary from them. According to GPL, those parties are free to distribute the source and the binary further.

Another thing is that MySQL is dual licensed. MySQL developer has to sign an agreement that allows MySQL to use her/his work in non GPL projects. That's why MySQL can be sold to a parties that use it as a part of proprietary software.

Reply Score: 4

So what
by baadger on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:09 UTC
baadger
Member since:
2006-08-29

Let's not forget that the GPL doesn't mean you have to make your source public. The GPL requires that if you distribute a binary you must make available the means (i.e. a download link or written offer) to obtain the source code. But this only applies to those who actually receive a copy of the binaries...in this case enterprise customers who pay for MySQL Enterprise and support.

There is absolutely nothing stopping anyone obtaining this source and re-releasing it publicly though, so let's not all go crazy.

Edited 2007-08-29 13:11

Reply Score: 5

RE: So what
by g2devi on Wed 29th Aug 2007 16:09 UTC in reply to "So what"
g2devi Member since:
2005-07-09

Depends. It's my understanding that MySQL is dual-licensed. Enterprise customers don't need a license to use MySQL with GPLed code, so anyone who purchases a license most likely does it to MySQL with non-GPLed code. While their proprietary code uses the dual-GPL/proprietary licensed code, the proprietary license applies, otherwise the GPL license does.

If MySQL stopped dual-licensing for their MySQL Enterprise product, the any update would not be compatible with the GPL. If not, you're right.

Edited 2007-08-29 16:14

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: So what
by baadger on Wed 29th Aug 2007 20:42 UTC in reply to "RE: So what"
baadger Member since:
2006-08-29

No I don't think it works like that. It only takes one GPL contributor to a vital piece of the code base to 'encumber'. (or 'free' it depending on your perspective).

Unless all contributors have explicitly waived/signed over all their copy rights to the MySQL then they *must* offer it in GPL and everyone who receives a copy can choose to exercise their rights under the GPL regardless of what other licenses were offered to them conditionally or otherwise. Once they have the binary they can choose the GPL.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: So what
by Rahul on Thu 30th Aug 2007 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So what"
Rahul Member since:
2005-07-06

"
Unless all contributors have explicitly waived/signed over all their copy rights to the MySQL then they *must* offer it in GPL"

MySQL AB does require to sign a copyright license agreement for contributed patches just like Sun does for Openoffice.org and StarOffice. So they do get the right to dual license as they wish.

Reply Score: 2

non-issue
by kurenai on Wed 29th Aug 2007 13:58 UTC
kurenai
Member since:
2006-01-24

A 2nd vote for just using postgresql.

Does anyone have experience with MySQL enterprise edition versus community edition? How big of a difference is it actually?

Reply Score: 1

MySQL isn't doing evil.
by systyrant on Wed 29th Aug 2007 14:12 UTC
systyrant
Member since:
2007-01-18

I took from this article that MySQL is just moving the Enterprise source code to a server that requires the end user to be a subscriber to the enterprise support packages (and they are removing the source tar packages). I don't believe they are hiding, removing, or hindering the community source code. As far as I understand it the community version is still the same.

They also noted that they don't intend to stop anybody from distributing the enterprise source.

To me it looks like a company that's trying to structure itself into a profitable open source (or mixed source) company. From what I've read (and some assumptions) I don't really see them as doing anything bad or against the community.

Now that doesn't mean that they aren't positioning themselves to make the Enterprise version and the community version very different. However, I don't really think they are trying to alienate themselves from the community.

Until somebody proves me wrong I don't think they are a bad company doing bad things.

Reply Score: 2

Postgre
by Buck on Wed 29th Aug 2007 14:24 UTC
Buck
Member since:
2005-06-29

Postgresql is very nice from all I've heard and it's certainly no harder to administer than MySQL, however what's with third-party support? I mean all those forums and things you're likely to use in some web project, they're written for MySQL only and seem to neglect PostgreSQL existence. Take Phorum for example... they've just dropped Postgre support... So it's all about developers of those apps - if I had the choice between MySQL and PostgreSQL, I'd choose the latter.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Postgre
by Soulbender on Thu 30th Aug 2007 07:45 UTC in reply to "Postgre"
Soulbender Member since:
2005-08-18

"however what's with third-party support?"
"Take Phorum for example... they've just dropped Postgre support."

Because most web developers does not have a clue about how to use or design an application, much less how to use and design a relational database. Mysql is often just used as replacement for flatfile storage.
Personally I would not want to develop a web application with a databse backend that doesn't have transactions and relations.
(Yes, I know mysql has transactions now but for many many years Monty's standard answer was "use table locks instead". Way to flaunt your ignorance of relational database design...)

Reply Score: 2

Cute
by Sollord on Wed 29th Aug 2007 15:11 UTC
Sollord
Member since:
2006-01-05

Just the post to get them pgsql fanboi roaring!

Is the source still available via cvs/svn like system?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Cute
by Matt Giacomini on Wed 29th Aug 2007 16:06 UTC in reply to "Cute"
Matt Giacomini Member since:
2005-07-06

"Is the source still available via cvs/svn like system?"

Only for enterprise customers.

Reply Score: 2

the drivers
by trenchsol on Wed 29th Aug 2007 17:45 UTC
trenchsol
Member since:
2006-12-07

I have never had an opportunity to sell MySQL based app. My custoomers have either Ms SQL (Express) or Postgres. If I had there is an peculiar situation about database drivers. Those are GPL, and the most obvious way to sell a proprietary code application is that customer purchases MySQL database server. Customers, on the other hand, use to think that MySQL is free of charge. They might become confused and unable to understand why they have to buy a product they already have for free.

MySQL is making distinction between enterprise and community edition, and that will cause some negative PR in some circles, but it will probably not affect their revenue. They could, as well, make clear that it is their policy to have customers pay the license for using MySQL as a part of proprietary apllication, and not leave that part to developers.

BTW, if one is Java developer JDBC/RMI bridge is a simple way to work around GPL constraints of MySQL JDBC driver.

Reply Score: 2

The sky is falling!
by sbergman27 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 20:55 UTC
sbergman27
Member since:
2005-07-24

Here is a pretty balanced article on this nonevent.

I'm not a MySQL AB fan for a number of reasons. Not the least of which is that PostgreSQL is lightyears ahead on features, and faster, as well.

But really not much has changed.

http://lwn.net/Articles/244839/

Edited 2007-08-29 20:56

Reply Score: 3

MySQL Enterprise Downloads
by shankar108 on Wed 29th Aug 2007 22:22 UTC
shankar108
Member since:
2007-08-29

You can download MySQL enterprise source/builds from http://www.dorsalsource.org

Thanks SolidDB!

Reply Score: 2

walterbyrd
Member since:
2005-12-31

I think SQLite is already standard in the newest version of Python, and PHP.

Using SQLite means you have the database all to yourself, your not sharing with 100 other people.

SQLite may have it's limitations, but I think it's probably adequate for most smaller sites.

Reply Score: 2

PG is much cleaner anyway
by bailey86 on Fri 31st Aug 2007 10:16 UTC
bailey86
Member since:
2005-10-14

Having used both MySql and PG for a while I would say that PG is much cleaner.

Just look at the documentation on the respective websites.

Reply Score: 1