Comments on: It's official: The future of Sun/MySQL is open...and closed

Sun has finally confirmed what many suspected: The future of software at Sun is a mix of open source and proprietary software.

[hodgesrm]

It seems as if the decision about open vs. closed source extensions is the easier of the several decisions facing the Sun management. A harder question is how to fit MySQL most effectively into the stable of open source databases Sun now owns or supports. For more on this see my blog post at http://scale-out-blog.blogspot.com/2008/05/mysql-sun-and-future-of-open-source.html.

[ian.waring]

The core is there for everyone to use - but if you buy a commercial subscription, you get some useful add-ons that allow you to build services based on that core more productively. So you're paying for tools that would be expected to be part of an added value service.

Seen the MySQL Workbench? A bargain at $100 or so...see here

Ian W.

[JamesStick]

I was following your logic just fine until this: "I've long thought that open source was the market's way of correcting the excesses of proprietary software: Write once, mint monopoly profits everywhere to the customer's detriment." That's got nothing to do with excessess or the software industry. Music, Film, Books, Patents -- the entire concept of commerce is founded with intellectual property. So I create a blog, and I cut and paste your words and republish them as my own for another blog -- should I get paid as if I authored them. Better question is: Should you get paid because you authored them?

I love Open Source, but more and more, backward and zealous public opinions like this one twist the knife in our backs.

[Sporkman]

I'm wondering if there's some middle-ground licensing between open source & closed proprietary that would get the best of both... Something along the lines of selling customers the source code & the permission to use & modify it in perpetuity, but restricting their right to distribute it (hence retaining the distribution rights & its profits)...

[Sporkman]

I'm wondering if there's some middle-ground licensing between open source & closed proprietary that would get the best of both... Something along the lines of selling customers the source code & the permission to use & modify it in perpetuity, but restricting their right to distribute it (hence retaining the distribution rights & its profits)...

[Sporkman]

I'm wondering if there's some middle-ground licensing between open source & closed proprietary that would get the best of both... Something along the lines of selling customers the source code & the permission to use & modify it in perpetuity, but restricting their right to distribute it (hence retaining the distribution rights & its profits)...

[hozelda]

>> I was following your logic just fine until this: "I've long thought that open source was the market's way of correcting the excesses of proprietary software: Write once, mint monopoly profits everywhere to the customer's detriment." That's got nothing to do with excessess or the software industry. Music, Film, Books, Patents -- the entire concept of commerce is founded with intellectual property....

You may have misunderstood Matt. I think he is referring to closed source and not to simple copyright ownerships of material that is openly published (in most cases that describes your examples: music, film, books).

Patents as applied to software are a joke, btw.

>> I love Open Source, but more and more, backward and zealous public opinions like this one twist the knife in our backs.

How do you manage to profess a "love" for open source software (so defined by its licensing) while at the same time criticizing the very same concept of licensing prose in such an open source manner, where the end user can take the words to attempt to profit as s/he so is able, if we were to apply such open source licenses to things like blogs? After all, you claimed software and blogs are on par when it comes to the minting of words for monopoly profits.

Perhaps what you were saying was that, in the manner of open source, we should be able to profit from others' (eg, written) text, music, etc.

Or perhaps you were saying instead that, in the usual manner of (eg, written) text, music, etc, open source should not be open source, not allow itself to be copied indiscriminantly.

You really do confuse me. I feel like I feel whenever I try to make sense of what Monopolysoft says. You sometimes speak clearly, but the facts don't jive. The cover sometimes looks good, but it hides the nasty. Like their monopolyware, they are inconsistent.

What is clear is that you can trust Monopolysoft with things that are not of value to you.