Petition to save MySQL

[FG Lurker]

In April 2009, Oracle announced that it had agreed to acquire Sun. Since Sun had acquired MySQL the previous year, this would mean that Oracle, the market leader for closed source databases, would get to own MySQL, the most popular open source database.

If Oracle acquired MySQL on that basis, it would have as much control over MySQL as money can possibly buy over an open source project. In fact, for most open source projects (such as Linux or Apache) there isn't any comparable way for a competitor to buy even one tenth as much influence. But MySQL's success has always depended on the company behind it that develops, sells and promotes it. That company (initially MySQL AB, then Sun) has always owned the important intellectual property rights (IPRs), most notably the trademark, copyright and (so far only for defensive purposes) patents. It has used the IPRs to produce income and has reinvested a large part of those revenues in development, getting not only bigger but also better with time.

MySQL is of immense importance to anyone who uses the web (FG uses MySQL and most of your favorite sites probably do too). Allowing Oracle to control MySQL is not good for anyone except Oracle as they will slow development to stop any chance of it competing with their very expensive product.

Please take a moment to sign the petition to encourage regulators to force Oracle to divest MySQL or release it under a permissive license.

[IkemenTommy]

I am sure it is not as good as MySQL, but aren't there other SQL alternatives like PostgreSQL and MSSQL (:confused: )? Are they near compatible?

[FG Lurker]

I am sure it is not as good as MySQL, but aren't there other SQL alternatives like PostgreSQL and MSSQL (:confused: )? Are they near compatible?

Postgres is very good and is open source. It isn't as widely supported as MySQL however and it doesn't have the same raw performance levels for web aps.

The only "MSSQL" I am aware of would be Microsoft SQL Server which is pretty much as expensive as Oracle in the areas they compete and most definitely closed source.

[omae mona]

Postgres ... isn't as widely supported as MySQL however and it doesn't have the same raw performance levels for web aps.

Based on what I understand, that information was true a long, long time ago, but not anymore. I think this is now considered FUD by the PostgreSQL community who have shown that PostgreSQL far outperforms MySQL under heavy loads, in particular.

Regarding the MySQL mess, I wish people would pay attention to the legal details of what is going on when companies get involved in open source projects. I have a hunch there are a lot of FOSS advocates saying "I told you so" regarding what Oracle has done. Why else would a company spend tons of money buying something that is apparently "free", unless they think they can eventually trap the users into paying for software or services? I admit I don't know much about what I am talking about in this MySQL case (I have not read up on it), but I assume that proprietary code or rights somehow snuck into critical parts of the code which was formerly free and GPL. Richard Stallman is probably preparing to roll in his grave (he's not quite dead yet, if I am not mistaken).

PostgreSQL is - based on what I know about MySQL - far better than MySQL in just about every respect, ranging from performance to reliability to adherence to standards. It competes with the commercial databases and is actually in use in actual production environments where data integrity matters. I understand MySQL is attractive to people who don't know how to use databases and don't care about absolute accuracy or reliability, but PostgreSQL is really not that much harder to use. Its name sucks and probably scares people away; MySQL sounds so cute and cuddly! But anyway, well-designed front-ends have made PostgreSQL quite a lot easier for beginners recently. The documentation is the best I have seen for any open source project. Unfortunately, there is a huge lack of PostgreSQL books, which makes it harder to learn for those that like books.

[Screwed-down Hairdo]

I know SFA about MySQL, but I hate The Man, so I signed the petition anyway.

[Greji]

I know SFA about MySQL, but I hate The Man, so I signed the petition anyway.

I'm with Hair and signed. Lurk, you owe me your first born for that.....

[nottu]

[FG Lurker]

Postgres ... isn't as widely supported as MySQL however and it doesn't have the same raw performance levels for web aps.

Based on what I understand, that information was true a long, long time ago, but not anymore. I think this is now considered FUD by the PostgreSQL community who have shown that PostgreSQL far outperforms MySQL under heavy loads, in particular.

I have a reasonably long history of working with database systems (everything from dbase to a multinational SAP implementation) and I don't wish to get into a long discussion over which open source RDBMS is "best". I have nothing against PostgreSQL and in fact prefer it's licensing model to that of MySQL. MySQL and MyISAM have their place though, even though many database purists don't like MyISAM's focus on raw read performance over features like transactions and enforcing referential integrity. (MySQL with InnoDB tables support these types of features.)

Regarding the MySQL mess, I wish people would pay attention to the legal details of what is going on when companies get involved in open source projects.

MySQL's GPL license ensures that the code will remain free and available for open source use no matter what happens with Oracle. It can not be revoked or removed. What Oracle can do however is kill the commercial versions of MySQL and stop supporting development. This is quite likely to happen considering how much the commercial version of MySQL hurts Oracle's business. If Oracle is forced to divest MySQL or release the code under a permissive license this is no longer a problem. My preference would be that MySQL is released under a permissive license as this would free it for commercial use without any license fees. (This wouldn't be very good for PostgreSQL however...)

I have a hunch there are a lot of FOSS advocates saying "I told you so" regarding what Oracle has done.

This matters little to the FOSS community as the GPL'd versions of MySQL will be available in perpetuity and can be developed on a community basis.

Why else would a company spend tons of money buying something that is apparently "free", unless they think they can eventually trap the users into paying for software or services?

Oracle wants to kill the commercial versions of MySQL (they can not kill the GPL versions, as mentioned above.) This has nothing to do with the GPL versions except that corporate sponsored development will end, which will of course slow development considerably.

I admit I don't know much about what I am talking about in this MySQL case (I have not read up on it), but I assume that proprietary code or rights somehow snuck into critical parts of the code which was formerly free and GPL.

No. MySQL is a dual-license product. If you use it only in-house or are using it with GPL'd software then you can use the GPL version of MySQL. If you are a corporation who wants corporate support or if you wish to sell an application that uses MySQL then you have to buy MySQL licenses. Oracle wants to kill the commercial version of MySQL because it costs them huge amounts of money ($1b+ a year or so).

Richard Stallman is probably preparing to roll in his grave (he's not quite dead yet, if I am not mistaken).

Again, the GPL version of MySQL will not disappear though development would likely slow without the backing of Sun (or MySQL AB previously).

I understand MySQL is attractive to people who don't know how to use databases and don't care about absolute accuracy or reliability

You may wish to check up on who exactly uses MySQL. Yahoo and Google pop to mind immediately but the list is very, very long. IBM and HP's consulting divisions both sell and support MySQL Enterprise (same basic product as the GPL version, but with a corporate license.)

but PostgreSQL is really not that much harder to use.

From my perspective it is not any harder to use. It just is not supported as widely and has very little documentation available in comparison to MySQL.

[FG Lurker]

Lotsa luck.

The focus will likely be European regulators, not those in the US...

[RogerRogerson]

Bugger mysql, (Polite as possible)

There are plenty of alternatives (and plenty of research going into the no-sql community and projects http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NoSQL).

I'm going to throw an example out there Postgres there said it! BSD style license completely free in more ways than one. The quality of the application is second to none and this is done due to the BSD style license you have people (Companies) writing derivative works and selling their work contributing straight back to the trunk with no worries about license infringement, then on the other hand you have open source style linuxy GPL and BSD people contributing their changes and tweaks in the trunk. Both of these are vital to a good open source db (imho). This is true freeness, freeness of choice, freeness of use, freedom to GET PAID. Sorry GPLers money doesn't grow in the back yard <3.

MySQL has been dying for a while (Prior to oracle ownership of Sun) with infighting and forking, let it rest in peace (pieces).

-Rog