# How will Gentoo respond to MySQL code split

## quantumsummers

From Linux.com:

"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 (GPL), MySQL is making it harder for non-customers to access the source code."

The article continues; http://www.linux.com/feature/118489

Also, 5.0.45 is out.  I am curious how Gentoo will respond to this, given that many of us use Gentoo & MySQL in an enterprise/production environment.

Regards,

Summers

----------

## didymos

I wouldn't be surprised if the FSF gets involved in this, because it looks like they're skating awfully close to violating the GPL.  They're definitely violating it in spirit.  I wonder what they think they can do about someone getting the code, then just redistributing it from some other location.  If it's GPL, it's GPL, and once you've got a copy, you can do anything you want with it.

[edit] Well, the answer is: nothing.  I just finished the article, and it looks like they're aware of that and aren't going to attempt to stop it.  So, Gentoo could just pay for access to a copy, then fetch the source and put it on the mirrors.  I doubt they'll have to though.  Plenty of people will likely pay for access and redistribute it as a matter of principle.

----------

## GNUix

I guess I am going to have to learn PostgreSQL after all.  Anybody have some good resources?

----------

## didymos

Well, nothing wrong with learning something, but why?  This is going to be totally ineffectual.  They can't stop people from distributing the Enterprise code.  All they can do is charge for access to their repositories.  I guarantee that within hours, copies will already be making their way to "unofficial" mirrors.  People will likely clone the bitkeeper trees as well.  The only way this makes sense is if they actually want people to do that, because then they get to offload most of the distribution cost, and occasionally pull in a bit of revenue from lazy people who'd rather just pay the fee.  They may even end up shooting themselves in foot, not to mention other portions of their anatomy.  Some people may decide to just fork MySQL, and as has happened before, the fork will end up with more popular support, more contributors, and more features.  Then the "real" MySQL will just be this shadowy ghost lurking in the background, with people pointing to it, shaking their heads, and muttering "Idiots..."

----------

## quantumsummers

Well, I hope we can continue to get the latest & greatest MySQL source.  Perhaps someone will fork it & name it OurSQL, releasing it under GPLv3.

I would like to see the MySQL maintainer respond to this with commentary.

Regards,

Summers

----------

## kashani

Seeing as how the Community version will be moving faster feature-wise than the Enterprise version most of us are quite happy to continue installing the freely available version. 

kashani

----------

## quantumsummers

My main concern is system stability, although I have never had a single real issue with MySQL code. 

@kashani: From the reading, the community edition will lack some of the enterprise features.  Therefore, I am uncertain about your statement.  Particularly of interest to me is the cluster support.

----------

## kashani

yep, my bad. Found this link later.

http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2007/08/09/new-mysql-community-release-policies-published/

IIRC the original plan was for Enterprise to be stable and Community to be fast moving. New features would be put into Community and then trickle into Enterprise as they stabilized. It looks like they have completely reversed that which makes no sense. It's not feasible to have active development in what is supposed to be a stable branch. 

That's really quite annoying. 

kashani

----------

## Corona688

If it's really as bad as that, someone's going to have to fork it.  The "free" MySQL and the for-pay MySQL would become seperate, independent products.  Give them time and they won't even be compatible with each other anymore.

----------

## GNUix

I don't know, this is part of the reason why I don't like the term 'open source'.  We need to get back to Free Software  :Sad: 

----------

## didymos

How would that change anything?  The enterprise code is GPL.  It's still "Open Source" and "Free Software".  Calling it one or the other isn't going to make the MySQL people alter their behavior.

----------

## GNUix

No, but there is a difference between open source and free software.  What it does alter is the people who use the product and the expectations. "Open ource" infers nothing about freedom, all it infers is you get the source.  But no flame wars  :Smile: 

----------

## didymos

Yes, but it doesn't change anything wrt to MySQL.  The license is already GPL. What they're doing is technically allowed under the current license they use, even if it violates the spirit.  The semantics of what to call it can't change that.  People already expect better behavior than this.  Insisting on PC (politically correct) terminology almost always fails anyway, and often the term insisted on becomes a joke, used only ironically or for mockery.  I mean, so  far RMS hasn't had much success in eliminating "Open Source" and he's been at it for years now.  It's also tended to earn him dismissal and the aforementioned mockery from quite a few people.  I respect what he does and has done, even if I don't agree in all particulars, but on that point, he's just wasting effort.  It's quixotic, and not in the noble or romantic sense, but in the crazy-guy-attacking-windmills sense.

----------

## GNUix

 *didymos wrote:*   

> Yes, but it doesn't change anything wrt to MySQL.  The license is already GPL. What they're doing is technically allowed under the current license they use, even if it violates the spirit. The semantics of what to call it can't change that.  People already expect better behavior than this.

 

True at this time.  

 *didymos wrote:*   

> Insisting on PC (politically correct) terminology almost always fails anyway, and often the term insisted on becomes a joke, used only ironically or for mockery.

 

I disagree.  It only fails if you let it.  I think it is just wrong to know the correct way something should be and say nothing.  It is like laughing at the kid with the "kick me" sign on his back instead of telling him and removing it.  It is only a joke to those people that did not really care in the first place and for those people there is nothing you can do anyways.

 *didymos wrote:*   

>   I mean, so  far RMS hasn't had much success in eliminating "Open Source" and he's been at it for years now.  It's also tended to earn him dismissal and the aforementioned mockery from quite a few people.  I respect what he does and has done, even if I don't agree in all particulars, but on that point, he's just wasting effort.  It's quixotic, and not in the noble or romantic sense, but in the crazy-guy-attacking-windmills sense.

 

I disagree again.  I think RMS has had tremendous success.  There are a lot of people (including Bruce Peren's.. the creator of the open source definition) that have abandoned the word open source because it does not infer the spirit of what is trying to be accomplished. 

Because large organizations and major "Linux" outlets consider RMS a joke does not "mean" anything.  It only means they don't get the "spirit" of the idea behind the software. It does not mean you give up trying to create that idea.  In any case this is starting to venture way off topic, so if you want, send me a PM and we can further this conversation.

----------

## didymos

Well, I don't think it's necessarily off-topic, but I do think this is one of those let's agree to disagree cases.  Clearly, I'm just more cynical than you are, so we're going to derive different conclusions from the same data.  It may very well be the case that neither of us is entirely correct.  In fact, I'd say that's actually the most likely possibility.

----------

## sschlueter

The enterprise sources are available at http://www.dorsalsource.org/

----------

## didymos

That actually took longer than I'd expected.  If you check the press section, it links to this article:

http://www.regdeveloper.co.uk/2007/08/14/mysql_tarball_community/

Obviously a bit a self-promotion, but interesting that one of the backers of this is run by an ex-MySQL guy.

----------

## thumper

So should we as non-enterprise users just start using the community edition?

And on another note, has anyone seen this yet?

http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_1206.html

George

----------

