The open-source community's double standard on MySQL
Tarring and Feathering, 1773
(Credit: Public Domain)Deja vu. Remember 2002? That's when Red Hat decided to split its code into Red Hat Advanced Server (now Red Hat Enterprise Linux) and Fedora. Howls of protest and endless hand-wringing ensued: How dare Red Hat not give everything away for free?
Enter 2007. MySQL decides to comply with the GNU General Public License and only give its tested, certified Enterprise code to those who pay for the service underlying that code (gasp!). Immediately cries of protest are raised, How dare MySQL not give everything away for free?
Ironically, in this same year of 2007, SugarCRM received universal plaudits (from me, as well) for opening up part of its code base under GPLv3. Groklaw crowed, "SugarCRM Goes GPLv3!" People everywhere flooded the streets to wax fecund and celebrate by multiplying and replenishing the earth.
This smacks of a perverse double standard, one that is neither fair nor warranted.
However welcome SugarCRM's move (and it was), customers continue to pay for the proprietary rights to SugarCRM's Professional and Enterprise code. I'm not criticizing SugarCRM here--it uses its revenues to plow back innovation into its open-source base. It's a model that works for SugarCRM and for its customers and community.
Rather, I'm criticizing the open-source community for applying a hypocritical double-standard.
When IBM, Adobe, Oracle, Novell, SAP, or other proprietary companies release even a modicum of code, they get universal plaudits. When 100-percent open-source companies like Red Hat and MySQL rejig the way they release code (while still releasing it and fully complying with open-source licenses), they get tarred and feathered.
It's almost as if the open-source community is suggesting that it's better to be a proprietary software company and contribute very little open source, rather than give away all but act selectively and intelligently about how one does it so as to be able to afford giving away more. Give little, get much credit. Do much, get little credit.
Linus Torvalds gets this. He understands the importance of making a living and of all the benefits that commercial interests have brought to open source. Would that his peers were as cogent on the matter.
MySQL, like Red Hat before it, is acting in a prudent way to ensure that it can continue to contribute its code back to the community. For those who think there's a free lunch in life, you're on the wrong planet. There isn't. Code doesn't grow on trees. Not even "community"-developed code like Linux. It has required a heck of a lot of money to get Linux to the point that it is now. Money that successful business models plowed into the code.
If you want the certified Enterprise code, no one is preventing you from paying for it. If you prefer to get it for free but are frustrated by the fact that MySQL Community doesn't have bug fixes immediately available to you, here's another suggestion: fork the code and fix them yourself.
But one way or another, please stop whining. It looks bad to see so many people with hands out and palms up--except as you take time to slap MySQL for acting responsibly. No one is stopping you from either paying MySQL with cash or paying the MySQL community with code. No one but yourself.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.
I can't believe you don't see the difference.
One's *progressing,* and one's *regressing.*
SugarCRM's setup is less than ideal, but people are just impressed when somebody's has made a giant symbolic and pragmatic leap of opening up more.
MySQL... my expectations are high, because I expect them to fully "get it," and their roots and userbase gives them the benefit of what should be a very evolved perspective on how to have a product lineup.
I agree that MySQL has every "right" to do what they're doing, I just don't think it's very smart.
Especially the having-two-products part. As somebody who supports RedHat Enterpise Linux, Fedora, and Ubuntu, professionally, it's a great advantage to have "enterprise" users and "community" users all talking about the same thing. AND it improves the quality of the product AND
support.
Related:
Seriously, somebody needs to run some numbers on PostgreSQL usage lately... I really suspect it's gone through the roof. (see previous comments about OSCON popularity. and this blogger agrees.)
Will Enterprise users benefit disproportionately? Yes, I believe so. But I also believe that doing so is **right.** When was the last time you contributed code to MySQL? I'm willing to bet that most people don't, yet these same people are ready to take blood when MySQL "closes" off its code. (In fact, it hasn't closed the code at all, but instead has closed **initial** access to that code to those who pay. This is the EXACT SAME THING that Red Hat does, and we're all the better for Red Hat's financial success in consequence.)
Now consider this: few people (if any) give MySQL credit for having acquired a closed-source high-end leading-edge telecom database (from Ericsson) and releasing it under the GPL to everyone's benefit. It's called MySQL Cluster.
The fact is, th company could **never** have done that without the financial muscle that comes from charging for the services it provides around the software. One of those services is a certified, bug fix-updated distribution. Postgres - either the project or EnterpriseDB - could not have done this.
We need to be careful what we wish for. If we want everything free, that's what we'll get, with the quality that comes with a purely volunteer effort. Charity can only get you so far. I think we should be grateful that MySQL views itself as an open-source **company**, with all the obligations to shareholders and benefits to the community that come with that combination.
Hmm. The foundation of your argument is that money/ funding feeds quality and future versions of MySQL/ open source software.
Agreed.
But your model is dependent on a construct that the only way this money can flow is if there are two versions, one that's paid, and one that's not, and the the paid version is how you get the money to the project/ company. I just disagree. I think people *do* pay when there is one product, a la Ubuntu, and they have the simple option of where to pay or not.
I'm not advocating for charity, or blind to business concerns.
I just think having two products split in this way is a bad move. A bad *business* move.
I have to work with products of all sorts, but when I get to choose the product that we're gonna buy, I don't consider tools that are split like MySQL has done. Not for money reasons, but support reasons. The market is littered with products that have an open source foundation, a free version, and often an "enterprise version."
Almost invariably, the pay version is the one that's hardest to find people talking about, building tools for, sharing config files for, etc.
As Tim O'Reilly says, "operation competency" is the new secret sauce. before i think about money, or features, or performance, i think "is it easy to be good at using this tool?" and "have a lot people before me, found a way to be good at this tool?"
That's just my personal way of deciding what to buy/use. I've found way better "support" of Fedora than RedHat Enterprise Linux. Better support of Ubuntu than SuSe Enterprise Server. I could go on and on. We've all watched WordPress lap Movable Type.
I'm not trying to get out of paying, but I'm simply going to avoid products that go into a pay ghetto.
RHT pulled this off... now we have the rising tide known as Ubuntu.
I'm very hopeful that he'll find a way to keep Ubuntu completely open, as it would be great to introduce a new model. But I think he'll find - as every open-source company before him has - that pure support just won't do it.
@walter, I think we're actually in agreement, though I don't think MySQL's "split" of its code will result in the poor support (or, at least, worse support than for Community). We're talking about the same code, but with Community on a slight bug fix delay. Six months is not very long in software terms, but it's long enough to convince many enterprises to just pay for immediate bug fixes. I think that's a fair trade off.
Believe me, I'd much prefer for everyone to pay for value. But they don't. So you see Red Hat, MySQL, Alfresco, etc. looking for ways to keep the bits free, but charge for "support." That definition of "support" keeps expanding, but I think generally in positive ways that are good for communities...and customers.
Bwahahahaha.... The slashtards and other puppets in the open source movement are easily led into whatever conclusion you want them to draw. Simply use a foil like "Bush did it" or "Microsoft will profit from it", and they will be spouting anything you tell them.
The open source community boos moves towards closedness.
I fail to see any double standard here :-/
Bwahahahaha.... The cnettards are easily led into whatever conclusion you want them to draw. Simply use a foil like "Open source has a double standard", and they will be spouting anything you tell them :P
Maybe they don't pose under the pretense of being open in the first place and because in their case none of their IP was borrowed. Great blog but sorry bad analogy on this one.
John Willis
johnmwillis.com
I don't know anything about the SugarCRM deal, but anytime a company releases formerly properietary source code under the GPL it is a good thing. Most of us understand that they didn't have to do it and appreciate it for what it is: a gift. Just like Id Software releasing the source code to their older game engines.
MySQL AB is different. While they did release their source code under the GPL, their intent was always obvious (they wanted commercial users to have to buy a license). The libraries required to access the server were released under the GPL license rather than the more permissive LGPL. If they truly embraced the open source ideal, they would have licensed the server code under the GPL (to encourage open source development) and the access libraries under the LGPL to allow commercial applications. This would ensure that fixes and updates to the server would be public, while allowing commercial applications. But they didn't want this, they wanted commercial users to purchase a license. They even went to the point of implying that distribution of MySql on the same CD as an app that could use MySql was illegal (and would require a license, even though it would not). Certainly what MySql AB has done is perfectly legal and permissable under the GPL (but is it ethical?).
I'm sure many cynics (like myself) see this for what it is: the first step towards closing the MySql source code. MySQL AB owns the copyright to every fix and improvment provided by the community. They can do what they want with the source, regardless of what the community and the contributors think about it. They can close the source code and remove the GPL anytime they want.
My prediction is that MySQL AB will shortly change the license on the Enterprise version source code (now that it hidden) to a proprietary license that only allows use by licenees. They will continue to use big fixes and additions provided by community users.
Simple - there is no double standard.
We're applauding the change in state [from closed to more open], not the resulting state [which is partially closed/partially open].
It is a little sad that they couldn't give more for free (gratis), but how can a company survive without somehow winning money? Writing code means wasting time, and time means money, so the company loses a lot of money.
I am not an adept of the property software model, but as long as RedHat and MySQL, or other companies as them, keep on following the GPL license...then this is ok.
This is all about GPL!!!
We use GPled software because we like the license and the software is better, but not because the software is gratis.
This kind of thinking, R.M. Stallman has been trying to make people understand for 20 years! GPL means FREE, not gratis!
RedHat and MySQL are doing a good thing. If they give something back to the community, then this is even better!
If all the GPLed Companies were doing this and make their distros (or software) more user-friendly, better... I'll still use their software of GNU/LINUX.
I love GPLed software because I can do whatever I want with it and is more secure, more stable, and not because is gratis.
Thats the spirit!
Are they trying to balance community interests against business interests? Of course. Did they do this transition perfectly? Evidently not.
But please don't question their integrity. In MySQL's management we have some of the absolute best/most trustworthy people in the industry. I have no financial interest in saying that. I mean it, and say it without reservation. MySQL's community can trust MySQL's employees. They mean well and have done fantastically well.
Had MySQL started from this point no one would have questioned it. Because they started with everything available to anyone, anytime, and have had to back away from that a little (though still in perfect compliance with the GPL), people are angry. I understand why. But let's not start suggesting MySQL is on a slippery slope here. Quite the opposite, in my view: the company is shoring up its financial stability so that it can write more and better software for many, many years to come.
- No double standard
-
by cypherpunks1
August 14, 2007 2:55 PM PDT
- A company freeing its source is doing the community a service. We're grateful. No problem there.
-
Reply to this comment
-
(15 Comments)A company developing a proprietary product is not part of the community. No problem there.
A company closing a free product is different. The community has usually, at that point, contributed to the success of the product, whether by using it, contributing patches, recommending it, finding bugs, or whatever else. A company that takes work that is, in part, done by the community, and makes it proprietary is doing something wrong.
I'd have no problem if MySQL decided to start a videogames division that made proprietary software. If, on the other hand, they take software that I've contributed to, and make it proprietary, that's a problem.