[LICENSING] why so hazy? Comparing to Samba.

software advocate wrote:
> Wow, well that is just neat. It's too bad I left PHP for TurboGears.
>
> The second problem is the buzz of frameworks (TurboGears, JBoss, etc) which
> use/want to use MySQL as a backend. This is really the only issue I have
> with MySQL. They do support other databases, and its not like anyone is
> twisting their arm to use MySQL, but the option is nice since people
> already
> know MySQL(if they need to send a raw statement.

I have no idea what this means.

First, you were complaining about PHP and Jim noted that we have a PHP
native driver in the works. Then, you move on to Python and Java...
sounds like you're just flame-baiting.

Also, your lack of knowledge about the GPL is apparent. You aren't
arguing anything to do with licensing. You're simply complaining that
something isn't free as in beer when you want it to be.

Hey, if you want to go ahead and waste valuable development time by
writing your own mysql client library for your (TurboGears???) software
instead of building in the small licensing cost that goes with embedding
or linking with the MySQL GPL libs, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping
you, and nobody's stopping your potential customers from buying your
competitor's software which is moving right along while you re-invent
the wrong wheels.

Cheers.

Jay

> On 2/22/07, Jim Winstead <jimw@mysql.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 01:39:49PM -0900, software advocate wrote:
>> > This is exactly why someone needs to develop a non-gpl mysql drop in
>> client
>> > for PHP. This would get around license costs, despite what MySQL AB has
>> to
>> > say, this would be completely legal. Ask your local rep from the FSF.
>> One
>> > could always reverse engineer the protocol like the Samba team. Also
>> the
>> > fact is, an idea can NOT be copyrighted. You can read the source, take
>> > notes, or even make documentation to create your own client.
>>
>> In fact, MySQL AB has developed exactly such a thing. (Look for info on
>> 'mysqlnd'.)
>>
>> This licensing comment in the internals documentation is old, and is
>> supposed to be removed. Unfortunately, updating the internals
>> documentation is not something that gets a lot of priority.
>>
>> Jim Winstead
>> MySQL Inc.
>>
>

On 2/22/07, Jay Pipes <jay@mysql.com> wrote:

> I have no idea what this means.
>
> First, you were complaining about PHP and Jim noted that we have a PHP
> native driver in the works. Then, you move on to Python and Java...
> sounds like you're just flame-baiting.


I don't mean to sound like I'm trolling. PHP is the most common relation in
which others can relate. Just to be clear, my reasons for not using PHP were
not MySQL related.


> Also, your lack of knowledge about the GPL is apparent. You aren't
> arguing anything to do with licensing. You're simply complaining that
> something isn't free as in beer when you want it to be.


I don't lack any knowledge. What I'm saying is people are looking at what
the MySQL website has to say and often get confused. I've seen plenty of
people who just have the simplest of questions which are obfuscated by the
MySQL website.

Hey, if you want to go ahead and waste valuable development time by
> writing your own mysql client library for your (TurboGears???) software
> instead of building in the small licensing cost that goes with embedding
> or linking with the MySQL GPL libs, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping
> you, and nobody's stopping your potential customers from buying your
> competitor's software which is moving right along while you re-invent
> the wrong wheels.


The plus to writing a language specific extension not only to get away from
the license fee, but to have a language specific extension. By having the
extension written in a language, say Python, you have more control(errors,
segfaults) than what you would with an extension written in C(though I've
never had/or seen the mysql client library crash). Also from the deployment
standpoint, there is no need to recompile the source on each platform you
release, only python, making even better.

I take offense to "reinvent the wrong wheels". This is what free software is
about, creating new software which may be useful for others. If I release a
pure python implementation and it hurts MySQL because they're losing people
paying fees, too bad. Free software and such, you know?

software advocate wrote:
> On 2/22/07, Jay Pipes <jay@mysql.com> wrote:
>
>> I have no idea what this means.
>>
>> First, you were complaining about PHP and Jim noted that we have a PHP
>> native driver in the works. Then, you move on to Python and Java...
>> sounds like you're just flame-baiting.
>
>
> I don't mean to sound like I'm trolling. PHP is the most common relation in
> which others can relate. Just to be clear, my reasons for not using PHP
> were not MySQL related.

Fair enough, and my apologies for sounding harsh (it's been a long week
but there's really no excuse for my being rude.)

>> Also, your lack of knowledge about the GPL is apparent. You aren't
>> arguing anything to do with licensing. You're simply complaining that
>> something isn't free as in beer when you want it to be.
>
> I don't lack any knowledge. What I'm saying is people are looking at what
> the MySQL website has to say and often get confused. I've seen plenty of
> people who just have the simplest of questions which are obfuscated by the
> MySQL website.

OK, there is a mismatch here between what you are saying and what you
are describing as a problem for your own development. To be more
specific, there really isn't a licensing issue *unless* you are linking
or embedding MySQL in a *non open source* application which you are
*distributing* as a package. I can think of no real-world scenario
under which an application written with the TurboGears framework would
come into a licensing issue, as the framework is designed AFAIK, to work
with the mysql connector library present on the server running the
application (MySQLdb library or the python-language driver, I can't
remember it's name...)

Where "confusion" typically comes up is not confusion at all; instead it
usually follows one of the following conditions:

The developer has embedded libmysqld or libmysql (the server or the
client) within the application and does not want to open source the
application. This comes into play in packaged applications typically,
not PHP, Python, Perl stuff. And, in this case, the developer has the
choice of a) requiring the installing user to have installed MySQL
separately, b) open sourcing their own application, c) writing their own
native MySQL client, or d) building in licensing costs into the
application after having gotten a quote from MySQL for such use.

The GPL is about *user* freedom, and reciprocity (i.e. if I open source,
you open source). Many developers love the idea of *using* GPL software
but don't like the idea of open sourcing their *own* software, which is
unfortunate for the developer, but precisely what the GPL aims to
prevent, in order to best protect the rights of the end-user.

Non-copyleft licenses such as BSD/MIT aim to protect the *developer's*
rights and free up any restrictions on the developer, allowing the
developer to use and incorporate such software in their own projects
with no reciprocity of opening up their own source.

There are merits to both approaches, but that is outside the scope of
discussion here.

I do see your point about the sockets layer/client protocol and that
language is being removed/has been removed from our website because it
has been, as you point out, a source of confusion; I will agree with you
there.

But, on a general note, I *don't* think that MySQL licensing is
confusing, and any confusion thereof stems from confusion about what the
GPL itself states. I hear tons of times how developers claim that they
fall under the mere aggregation clause when in fact they do not -- it's
just an attempt to bypass the GPL restrictions.

Like yourself, I'm no lawyer, and Clint, our general counsel is welcome
to chime in here... but my honest *personal* opinion is that most times
I hear complaints about this, it tends to be just that, a complaint that
there is no way around the GPL and that people wish that the license was
BSD so that there would be no reason to acquire a license *if needed*.

Am I pushing MySQL license costs? NO WAY (hey, I'm in the Community
Team!) What I am saying is that I think there are pretty clear lines
which say on one side "no license needed" and on the other side "license
needed". The client protocol clause was indeed confusing, which is why
Jim and I noted it's being/has been removed from the site.

> Hey, if you want to go ahead and waste valuable development time by
>> writing your own mysql client library for your (TurboGears???) software
>> instead of building in the small licensing cost that goes with embedding
>> or linking with the MySQL GPL libs, go right ahead. Nobody's stopping
>> you, and nobody's stopping your potential customers from buying your
>> competitor's software which is moving right along while you re-invent
>> the wrong wheels.
>
>
> The plus to writing a language specific extension not only to get away from
> the license fee, but to have a language specific extension. By having the
> extension written in a language, say Python, you have more control(errors,
> segfaults) than what you would with an extension written in C(though I've
> never had/or seen the mysql client library crash). Also from the deployment
> standpoint, there is no need to recompile the source on each platform you
> release, only python, making even better.

Agreed, and MySQL is aiming to provide just this for PHP, Python, and
other languages both this year and in the future. It's a hot
development right now internally.

> I take offense to "reinvent the wrong wheels". This is what free
> software is
> about, creating new software which may be useful for others. If I release a
> pure python implementation and it hurts MySQL because they're losing people
> paying fees, too bad. Free software and such, you know?

Sorry again for being harsh... I shouldn't have been so snarky. But, I
would debate your definition of free software I don't think it's all
about reinventing wheels; I view free software as providing the bedrock
upon which wheels of different sizes and types can be developed...

Cheers, and sorry again for behaving like a poo-head.

Jay Pipes
Community Relations Manager, North America, MySQL
jay@mysql.com

>
> But, on a general note, I *don't* think that MySQL licensing is
> confusing, and any confusion thereof stems from confusion about what the
> GPL itself states. I hear tons of times how developers claim that they
> fall under the mere aggregation clause when in fact they do not -- it's
> just an attempt to bypass the GPL restrictions.
>
>
>


What situations have you seen where developers think they fall under mere
aggregation?

On 2/22/07, Jay Pipes <jay@mysql.com> wrote:
>
> I do see your point about the sockets layer/client protocol and that
> language is being removed/has been removed from our website because it
> has been, as you point out, a source of confusion; I will agree with you
> there.
>
>
There is one more piece of very confusing information to more people. I know
what it means, but directly it is confusing.

http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html

"Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release
your program as GPL."

Under any type of law, how does this even hold water? The GPL is about
distribution of software or a work, not a NDA. This type of statement should
never have been made.

software advocate wrote:
> On 2/22/07, Jay Pipes <jay@mysql.com> wrote:
>>
>> I do see your point about the sockets layer/client protocol and that
>> language is being removed/has been removed from our website because it
>> has been, as you point out, a source of confusion; I will agree with you
>> there.
>>
>>
> There is one more piece of very confusing information to more people. I
> know
> what it means, but directly it is confusing.
>
> http://dev.mysql.com/doc/internals/e...ng-notice.html
>
> "Therefore if you use this description to write a program, you must release
> your program as GPL."
>
> Under any type of law, how does this even hold water? The GPL is about
> distribution of software or a work, not a NDA. This type of statement
> should
> never have been made.

Agreed, which is, why Jim and I have stated it is removed from the rest
of the website, but the internals docs haven't unfortunately been
updated like the rest of the site. Note that we will work to remove it
as soon as possible.

cheers,

Jay

In all seriousness... If the developer is really worried about paying the
fee, he can develop his own mysql client.

As far as the pointed out documentation links from earlier, the information
is there. You do not have to GPL your application if you read the docs. The
license of those docs only cover distribution. You can't copyright ideas,
and the protocol is an idea. If they wanted to protect their "protocol",
then the only method would be a patent like cisco. If that isn't enough,
there are many other mysql code examples and other docs on the protocol.

On 2/22/07, mos <mos99@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> At 04:33 PM 2/22/2007, Barry Newton wrote:
> >At 05:00 PM 2/22/2007, mos wrote:
> >
> >> On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran on
> >> MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it to 1000
> >> MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you will need a
> >> MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even if you give the
> >> software away for free.
> >
> >The last line of the license notice reads: "Contact MySQL AB if you need
> >clarification of these terms or if you need
> >to ask about alternative arrangements. "
> >
> >This kind of suggests to me that they're willing to talk. I expect that
> >as long as you're willing to pay *something*, there's probably a lot of
> >room for negotiation. It's distinctly not in their interest to eliminate
> >collateral development efforts. And there are already several products
> >out there which do connect with MySQL and cost < $100.
> >
> >
> >Barry Newton
> >
>
> Barry,
> Yes, I'm sure they'll negotiate if you have a few hundred
> customers. But when starting out, the first hundred or so sales will cost
> you $595 and that will dictate how much you can charge for an application.
> At that price you'd have to sell your software for at least $1000, and
> perhaps more. If some competitor comes in with a lower price because he's
> using Firebird or PostgreSQL, he can eat your lunch. He can sell his
> software for $500 when you have to charge $1000 just to make the same
> profit. I just don't see MySQL well suited for commercial applications
> unless you're charging a few thousand dollars for it and the customer is
> already a MySQL shop. If it your customers are using Oracle or DB2 then
> they're used to paying $50,000 for software, then sure, royalties are ok.
> But MySQL shops usually choose MySQL because they are cheap (without
> sufficient funds) and don't have a lot of money to spend on application
> software. That's just one guy's opinion.
>
> Mike
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=s...cate@gmail.com
>
>

At 04:33 PM 2/22/2007, Barry Newton wrote:
>At 05:00 PM 2/22/2007, mos wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, if you developed a web application that ran on
>> MySQL (an accounting package say) and you want to distribute it to 1000
>> MySQL users without giving them your source code, then you will need a
>> MySQL AB license for each copy ($595,000 in total) even if you give the
>> software away for free.
>
>The last line of the license notice reads: "Contact MySQL AB if you need
>clarification of these terms or if you need
>to ask about alternative arrangements. "
>
>This kind of suggests to me that they're willing to talk. I expect that
>as long as you're willing to pay *something*, there's probably a lot of
>room for negotiation. It's distinctly not in their interest to eliminate
>collateral development efforts. And there are already several products
>out there which do connect with MySQL and cost < $100.
>
>
>Barry Newton
>

Barry,
Yes, I'm sure they'll negotiate if you have a few hundred
customers. But when starting out, the first hundred or so sales will cost
you $595 and that will dictate how much you can charge for an application.
At that price you'd have to sell your software for at least $1000, and
perhaps more. If some competitor comes in with a lower price because he's
using Firebird or PostgreSQL, he can eat your lunch. He can sell his
software for $500 when you have to charge $1000 just to make the same
profit. I just don't see MySQL well suited for commercial applications
unless you're charging a few thousand dollars for it and the customer is
already a MySQL shop. If it your customers are using Oracle or DB2 then
they're used to paying $50,000 for software, then sure, royalties are ok.
But MySQL shops usually choose MySQL because they are cheap (without
sufficient funds) and don't have a lot of money to spend on application
software. That's just one guy's opinion.

Mike

On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:33:47PM -0600, mos wrote:
> That's just one guy's opinion.

And quite misinformed, unfortunately.

$595 is the per-server price for MySQL Enterprise, which includes
support, the network monitoring and advisory service, and more. It is
not the OEM pricing. You may notice that we don't publish OEM pricing,
precisely because it is far too easy for someone to think they just need
to multiply some base price times some theoretical number of units.

If you are an ISV looking to license MySQL for distribution with your
application, contact the MySQL sales team. They are happy to work with
you to fit find the pricing model that makes the most sense. (Or, of
course, you can just open source your application.)

And I hope we can now consider this horse to be sufficiently dead.

Jim Winstead
MySQL Inc.

Why you always talk about *client* fee ?? what about the server?

Sincerily, I'm see MySQL is not the best option for a commercial application
(you don´t distribute you application with GPL lincense). Postgresql is a
excellent DB using BSD license and the last version improve the speed
reponse.

Someones thinks the license of Mysql isn´t confusing .. It is!!!.

In my country so much people think Mysql is free ... I say them "It's no
free ... It's open source".

Two study cases:

1. If I design a desktop application for use with MySQL but I'm not
distribute any MySQL client or server and It's my client who install the
server and client ... apply any fee?

2. If I use MySQL on a commercial home page ... apply any fee??

thanks,

RAUL DUQUE
Bogotá, Colombia


----- Original Message -----
From: "Jim Winstead" <jimw@mysql.com>
To: "mos" <mos99@fastmail.fm>
Cc: <mysql@lists.mysql.com>
Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:58 AM
Subject: Re: [LICENSING] why so hazy? Comparing to Samba.


> On Thu, Feb 22, 2007 at 11:33:47PM -0600, mos wrote:
>> That's just one guy's opinion.
>
> And quite misinformed, unfortunately.
>
> $595 is the per-server price for MySQL Enterprise, which includes
> support, the network monitoring and advisory service, and more. It is
> not the OEM pricing. You may notice that we don't publish OEM pricing,
> precisely because it is far too easy for someone to think they just need
> to multiply some base price times some theoretical number of units.
>
> If you are an ISV looking to license MySQL for distribution with your
> application, contact the MySQL sales team. They are happy to work with
> you to fit find the pricing model that makes the most sense. (Or, of
> course, you can just open source your application.)
>
> And I hope we can now consider this horse to be sufficiently dead.
>
> Jim Winstead
> MySQL Inc.
>
> --
> MySQL General Mailing List
> For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql
> To unsubscribe:
> http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=r...e@yahoo.com.mx
>