MySQL Users Conference in 10 Days now!
Hi! As you may know, MySQL is holding it's third annual User's Conference on April 18-21 in Santa Clara, California. This is a annual event that I (and the other cofounder Monty) love to participate in. It nice to see so many people in one place exited about MySQL! It's a unique opportunity to meet and discuss with some of the key developers who work on MySQL's. And as important a even more unique place to meet with other users/customer, partners and people checking out MySQL for the first time. Many people I meet last year thought it was especially interesting to meet other customers Not only do we share the current roadmap and vision for where MySQL is going (and where we wont go!), this is also an opportunity to influence our roadmap and give us feedback. And there will be presentations by the key developers of MySQL. Brian Aker (Server GUI overall), Sanja Byelkin (query cache, views subqueries), Mark Matthews (Java JDBC / MXJ driver), Reggie Burnett (.Net), Peter Gulutzan, Trudy Pelzer (both MySQL vs commercial and official standards), Mike Zinner (MySQL Administrator other GUI's), Peter Gralbraith (Perl-DBI + Federated Storage Engine), Heikki Turi (InnoDB Storage Engine), Peter Zaitsev, Josh Chamas (both practical MySQL performance tuning gurus) and many others (including Monty and me who still knows a thing or two). And of course keynotes from people like Miguel de Icaza (Gnome, Mono Novell), Mikael Tieman (g++, Cygnus, RedHat, OSI) and Adam Bosworth (Google, BEA). For all speakers (I can only mention a few of the ones I happen to meet personally here) see http://mysqluc.com/pub/w/35/speakers.html There will be a lot of focus on using new features in MySQL 5.0, performance optimization techniques, cluster, replication, migration, as well as case studies and best practices presentations so you can learn from others. Almost all of the MySQL management team (including CEO, VP Eng, VP Services etc) will be ther. And of course some of our best sales guys (they are nice guys, they bring in all the money we pay our developers with!).. If there's just one event you go to this year make it this one. You'll can learn from the experts and also talk to other users in a similar situation. This year, our conference is jointly presented by MySQL AB and O'Reilly so there's not only a great lineup of speakers but it will also be a lot of fun. However, the conference is rapidly approaching and so fat the 5.0 In Depth: Stored Procedures, Views, Triggers, Cursors and Advanced MySQL Performance Optimization tutorials are already full. You can find out more information at www.mysqluc.com. We look forward to seeing you there! /David -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
MySQL Founders speak out against software patents
You may have noticed that Monty I have spoken out against software patents regularly. We have actually been fighting them since way before MySQL! For example David joined the LPF (see lpf.ai.mit.edu) in 89/90. We believe that software patents will work against software developers by enabling the largest companies to develop patent monopolies that stifle innovation. We believe that copyright is the correct way to protect innovation and preserve programmers rights. On Tuesday, Monty issued a statement along with Linus Torvalds (Linux) and Rasmus Lerdorf (PHP) as part of a campaign conducted by www.nosoftwarepatents.com. You can read the full statement here: http://nosoftwarepatents.com/en/m/intro/app0411.html Hopefully you will also take part in this fight (especially if you live in any of the European Union states). See the How to Help link to the left on the nosoftwarepatents.com website. Monty David MySQL Founders -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 17:46, John Griffin wrote: Hello David, Since you were kind enough to clarify some matters on licensing I was hoping you would also be open to suggestions. Instead of charging a flat fee for each copy of MySQL that is resold why not charge a percentage up to a certain point. It might make it a bit easier for developers with inexpensive applications to choose your product. If I know that MySQL is going to be, for example, a constant ten percent of my sale cost I can price more competitively for the market. The is defiantly a boon for developers who are selling applications for the forty to sixty dollar market. As they say, ten percent of something is more than ten percent of nothing. Well we have always done percentage deals in some cases. The important point is that negotiating a percentage deals takes some human time. So it has to be a minimum total amount for us to make a profit on it. Sales people need to be paid to! If this pricing scheme will not work for MySQL can you please explain why? I am genuinely curious. It depends on the total amount of money involved. /David John -Original Message- From: David Axmark [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, March 21, 2003 2:14 PM To: Damir Dezeljin Cc: MySQL List Subject: Re: InterBase vs. Mysql On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) -- MySQL General Mailing List For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql To unsubscribe:http://lists.mysql.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Fri, 2003-03-21 at 21:26, John Griffin wrote: Gerald, One hundred MySQL licenses still works out to $90.00 USD. Even if it worked out to half that would still leave me with no margin and so no compensation for my time. I am trying to find a way of using MySQL in a very low cost market and still have still have pocket change after each sale. The current pricing scheme does not support this market and I am hoping that MySQL is open to suggestions to allow it to support that market. No 100 licenses has a lower price per copy. And embedded in a application that sells at 1000, 1 or 100 the price gets much lower. Basically they more you can commit to sell the lower price you get. And as others have commented for our sales people it not the price per copy that the key thing for spending time on a deal. It the total deal size. So if you are planning to sell 100 $50 applications we do not have a way to price it for you since that negotiation takes expensive human time. But if if you are selling for example 2 it another matter. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Wed, 2003-02-19 at 08:14, Damir Dezeljin wrote: Firstly excuse my poor english ;))) I read the entire mail thread. I'm useing MySQL for our own data storage (I use it to store our oceanographic data for internal use) - I guess that I don't need a commercial license for this. I have another question ... if I will do a commercial program in future which will use MySQL as backend, do I need to buy only one commercial license to link the program or does any customer need a commercial license if I don't want that my code to be GPLed? You need to buy a license for each distributed/sold version of your product that contains MySQL. But there are no limits on the number of clients that connects to that MySQL server of number of CPUs in the machine or so (like with our big proprietary competitors). /David (MySQL Co-Founder) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 18:06, Ben Clewett wrote: This will be my last posting. I don't belive I am being constructive and have no wish to instantly be hated by the whole of MySQL. Michael T. Babcock wrote: Ben Clewett wrote: MySQL say that this is an extension of the application, and therefore breaks the GPL, and therefore a licence is needed. They are however, the only big GPL user who thinks this way. No they're not. The issue is not the use of the server (as previously discussed a few weeks back), but the library. If you use the older library version (which is LGPL'd), you can basically do as you please as you believe you should be able to. As the new library is under the GPL, you can't legally link it to a non-GPL-compatible program at all (without purchasing a different license). What you say is that the API is in my application. The API is part of MySQL. Therefore my application is GPL or needs a licence. Therefore, if I was to use ODBC, I would not be using your API in my application, and could install MySQL under the GPL and use my application without licence? (If I so choose.) You forget that (as someone else pointed out, perhaps Ben) MySQL's Copyright still lies with MySQL AB. You can fork the code and modify and distribute it _under the GPL_ but that doesn't buy you anything -- you don't then have the right to link it against a commercial program or even to relicense it. All you have is a renamed version of MySQL that is still under the GPL. That's not what you're hoping for, is it? This may be true. I am a programmer, not a solicitor. It does seem to fly in the face of Ritchard Stallman's origional idea and intent of the GPL. So your software may be folked, but then not used as it then violates some other law. If that's the case, so be it. I better copyright all my GPL projects ASAP... Richard Stallmen thinks the MySQL dual licensing model is ok. He does not love it since he think all software should be free. I do meet him pretty often (I was for example at FSF meeting in Boston last Saturday). What goes against his views is proprietary software like the one you are writing. So he would prefer us to only do GPL software and force YOU to be GPL to. But we prefer to make you pay for not having to be GPL. And yes we are DEFINITELY not the only ones having this view of the GPL. Check the GPL FAQ at gnu.org. I do apologize for our sales people being rude. They should not be rude even when you project is to small for their attention. Many people here are perfectly happy with the GPL, I might add. I license all my MySQL-related code under the GPL. I don't distribute it to anyone, so its not terribly relevant, but its well marked and noted as being either GPL'd or for personal use only (most of which is GPL'd as well). I don't write much commercial, non-GPL code. I write a lot of commercial and GPL'd code though, and so do many other people (like MySQL AB). You might want to consider it too. I wish I had that sort of job I would prefer this option. Unfortunatelly I am a dying breed of employed programmer selling commercial applications. Maybe my own applications will be replaced with a GPL ones. I might even wright them my self. Until then, saving money on erronious licence fees payes for my family to eat. Where, if I may, I would love to leave this How come our licensing is erronous when your charging fro your software is not? There are a lot of MySQL programmers who are paid with these licensing fees that also have family's who has to eat! /David (MySQL Co-Founder) - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: AW: InterBase vs. Mysql
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 13:55, Bernhard Döbler wrote: Hi, the OpenSource GPL'd version of InterBase 6.01 is called Firebird and is available from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/firebird On Hannover CeBit'2002 I talked to a guy from MySQL AB. It was the time the Firebird 1 release was delayed because of errors in the SQL engine. The guy told me he knew about the problem because MySQL follows the development of InterBase respective Firebird since it potentially would be a concurrent if more people knew about it. MySQL I went to dinner with two key Firebird people just a few weeks ago after FOSDEM in Brussles. So we are pretty friendly with the firebird people and we will try to move some of the features they have to MySQL. IMHO very much develops it's feature-richness towards InterBase keeping it's own simplicity. InterBase for instance knows subselects but why use a complicated subselect if a MySQL (LEFT) JOIN is so fast and easy to write? We will add all the stuff but it will take time since it takes time to do it RIGHT! /David Just my two Euro-cents :-) Regards Bernhard - Original Message - From: Ben Clewett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Rusch (ext) Reiner [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Inandjo Taurel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 1:29 PM Subject: Re: AW: InterBase vs. Mysql Here there are very little competitive DBMS systems. But there are some, and more each day. PostgreSQL, MSDE, SapDB, OpenInterbase (or what ever it's called). - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Please clarify copyright of shared library. (fwd)
I got this forwarded to me. Yes the library from 4.0 and above is now GPL. And in 3.23 it was LGPL. As for the inability to link with OpenSSL we as the copyright holder can allow this. And we do so. The same license incomparability problem also appears for the Apache and Eclipse people that we are talking to. Basically we will allow linking with our GPL library with any true OpenSource package (OSI guidelines). We will but something in the license but I need to get something from a lawyer and also get it approved by IBM legal department that might take time... /David - -- Forwarded message -- Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 18:23:50 +0100 From: Christian Hammers [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Please clarify copyright of shared library. Hello The follwing bug was reported against the Debian libmysqlclient10 package. Can you comment on this? The mentioned /usr/share/doc/ copyright file includes a copy of http://www.mysql.com/doc/C/o/Copyright.html bye, - -christian- On Sun, Nov 10, 2002 at 05:03:06PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote: Package: libmysqlclient10 Version: 3.23.51-1woody4 Severity: normal Hello, /usr/share/doc/libmysqlclient10/copyright states This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License. If you take a look at the files in mysql-dfsg-3.23.53/libmysql/* you'll notice that all of them are licensed under *L*GPL. Nevertheless this does not make libmysqlclient10 licensed under LGPL because mysql-dfsg-3.23.53/libmysql/net.c includes mysqld_error.h, a GPLed file. Please clarify this issue with upstream, whether this was an accident and libmysqlclient10 is supposed to be LGPL or if it was intended and libmysqlclient10 is indeed licensed under GPL. I hope it is the former, else it'd be impossible to link against libmysqlclient10 and e.g. OpenSSL at the same time. thanks, cu andreas # for the robot: php mysql - - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: For info see http://quantumlab.net/pine_privacy_guard/ iD8DBQE+QPhYSVDhKrJykfIRAnPRAJ9AkHxydO9F9Lzsznu1X8/RbhThRgCdEaNm YgEWiQ6elrk6flTzGOYOY+o= =dhbr -END PGP SIGNATURE- - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: LEGAL information about MySQL.
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 13:42, Pae Choi wrote: I do not know about MySQL marketing strategies. But as far as GPL goes, it even encourge to sell. Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money? Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The [1]right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.) [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html Maybe MySQL.com is concern about own profit so does other commercial vendors. They all use public-domain code in some degree. I do encourge everyone same as GPL to sell your own products without concerning about license violation. Just put the copy of GPL license, as well as source and binary combo. in the corresponding package. (I personally think that the binary will be a necesssary portion when you distribute your own products and provide the URL where they can download the source.) And you can have your own license in your products. You are wrong. I have talked with the people who wrote the GPL many times and if you did the above they (or us if it where MySQL you mistreated) will send you some legal letters. You must provide the source for the combined work when you distribute under the GPL. But you can sell the MySQL code for money under the GPL without our approval. But you may not use our trademark. And you can not stop the customer giving it all away for free (since you had to give him/her source code). I have been in court once discussing this issue and I would like to stay out of those kind of issues for the rest of my life. You have all the rights for your own products same as the GPL packages do for their own. /David MySQL Co-Founder - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: LEGAL information about MySQL.
On Sat, 2002-11-30 at 10:51, Mark wrote: - Original Message - From: Mark Matthews [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Pae Choi [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cc: Tonu Samuel [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Darney Lampert [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Saturday, November 30, 2002 5:30 AM Subject: Re: LEGAL information about MySQL. If you are not sure exactly how the GPL works, and you have read the license terms that I've referenced above, and still want to distribute your software that uses and/or links to software licensed under the GPL, I suggest you first seek a lawyer's opinion, and have it explained to you in non-legalese. Are you suggesting that every program that uses MySQL has to be GPL?? I doubt that. If so, you are effectively saying, for instance, that no program written in Perl could ever be non-GPL (as all Perl scripts use/link to GPL Perl). And this is, of course, not the case. There are many commercial products out there, like Perl debuggers, for example, that are definitely NOT licenced GPL, yet still use/link to Perl. With MySQL 4.0 that has a GPL client every program that is distributed linked with MySQL needs to be under a GPL compatible license. We will extend the compatibility to cover a given set of OSI (opensource.org) approved licenses. As for Perl is has two licenses one which is less restrictive than the GPL. I read the MySQL Licensing Policy, and, to me, it said: If your application is NOT licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL AB and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that internally or externally), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL software in question. The licence talks about DISTRIBUTING the MySQL software itself; or, as it says, More specifically: a) If you include the MySQL server in your non Open Source application, you need a commercial licence for the MySQL server, b) If you include one of the MySQL drivers in your non Open Source application (so that your application can run with MySQL), you need a commercial licence for the driver(s) in question. The MySQL drivers currently include an ODBC driver, a JDBC driver and the C language library. Except, of course, that most people do NOT distribute MySQL software, or drivers with their own programs. Besides, if I write a program in Perl, which uses MySQL, it is still Perl that distributes drivers and such. My OWN program does no such thing. My program just says: Use DBI;. Sorry, but MySQL is a part of the combined work. So if you distribute a Perl program that is indirectly linked with MySQL you need to distribute the source of you program. /David MySQL Co-Founder - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: [OT] LEGAL information about MySQL.
On Mon, 2002-12-02 at 14:45, Darney Lampert wrote: Sorry continue this subject ... I´m the author original question, LEGAL information about MySQL. But I Think that my question is simple and the other answers do not make sense to me. I never said that I change original MySQL source code, and I just want know if I can use MySQL database on my comercial application without pay for it. My application ONLY access MySQL. Our basic answer is No. If you ship MySQL (server or client) with a commercial (non opensource) application you should pay. I develop a program with Delphi with access MySQL database. I'll sell my program, and ONLY give a copy of MySQL to the users, or indicate the place to download to them. Does my client need to pay a license to MySQL AB? Not, it actually you who need to pay in this case. Or you can distribute with source code (just like we do!). Other case: I develop a web-site with PHP wich access MySQL database to a client who paid for it. The users do not need to install MySQL. Does anybody need to pay something? Who? (Remember that my Web Server just run PHP and MySQL, wich are free. My site (wich is paid) uses the services provided by the web-server) In this case there is not distribution so no fee is needed. We would like to be paid in this case also but there is legal requirement for a license if you do not distribute. But we would like every one who uses MySQL for commercial services to pay for support! In this case, does my client, the web-server or I need to pay a license to MySQL AB? No, as explained above. The GPL kicks in when you *distribute* and then you can either distribute all (including your) source code or buy a commercial license from us. Please, just wellfounded answers, not personal opinions. I am the licensing guru for MySQL AB and one of the founders. /David MySQL Co-Founder Thanks At 15:51 30/11/2002 +0100, you wrote: Hello. I do not intent to follow-up on the issue, as you are either trolling or clueless (and not willing to inform yourself) or both. On Sat 2002-11-30 at 08:30:52 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Seems like all against I see are coming from MySQL team. But I want to prevent a misconception: I am in no way affiliated to MySQL AB than being an user of their software. Bye, Benjamin. Darney Lampert Sky Informática Ltda - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Problems with MySQL lists internet line
Hi We are having some problems with high load on our Internet line in the MySQL office in Uppsala. And we might need to temporary ( about 12-24 hours) turn off the MySQL mailing lists. If our current workaround will work we can stay up. We should get a upgrade of our Internet line equipment tomorrow and hopefully that will solve the problem. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: [OT] LEGAL information about MySQL.
On Thu, 2002-12-05 at 03:23, Pae Choi wrote: Look! I already unsubscribed this. Do you understand what that mean? I have no interest to dealing with MySQL and have no time for this. You must understand that this thread was started from someone who were interested to sell his/her product that utilize MySQL. And I was trying to help both sides. One who is creating an innovative products as well as MySQL. Do you know how both sides get benefits? Actually, MySQL should appreciate them. Those folks actually help your business by moving your products. Also, you MUST understand that if one product provides the persistence service that only comes with JDBC/JDO/or similar functionality. So the product can adopt any back-end DBMS, for example, and leaving the choice of DBMS to thier customers. They will more than likely go with the *reliable* DBMS. In case the customers somehow select MySQL for thier DBMS solution, to wit, if they download and use it. You are out of luck! 1) The Product innovation group did not distributed; Their customers download it. 2) In their own license, they can declare own rights. Still want to chase them, it's your choice(I don't know what you are going to after for, but it will be your choice as well to spend the time and your own expenses.) Last, by no means least, put me out of this. I am no longer interesting to waste my time with MySQL. I already seen enough and got sense of attitudes from MySQL. Pae P.S.: If your intention was for commercializtion from the beginning, you should started with .com, not .org -- I can see your sly marketing strategy. FYI: We did start with mysql.com. We did not get mysql.org until last year. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: client library no longer LGPL licensing
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 00:35, Ed Carp wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 The change is made to avoid lots of discussions about when the GPL is effective. Basically we follow the same rules as we always have about when we want people to pay us for a commercial license but now we have a better legal ground to base it on. I hope it will save us (especially me since I have become the MySQL licensing guru :-) lots of discussion about who has to pay and who can use the GPL version. And of course this is totally in the line with what the Free Software Foundation and RMS wants since it spreads free software. We can still make exceptions and allow free use if there is a good reason for it (But not for I like to make money without freeing my code or paying you like reasons). So the goal is to get money out of the people who distribute non OpenSource application using MySQL. We need the income for the much larger development team we now have. And the cost of running a real company instead of the administrative mess that Monty and I had earlier (And that mess was very very bad for my ease of mind). Does this also apply to non-open-source but free applications? For example, we give away Escapade for free - always have, always will, at least for the minimal version of the product. If we develop a non-free version of Escapade that uses mysqlclient, what happens then? We also distribute statically-linked and dynamically-linked versions of the product, and I would be interested in knowing MySQL's position on this issue in regards to licensing. I wrote non OpenSource above since the price you charge is totally irrelevant to the GPL. You need a commercial license if you do not ship you source code regardless of price point. But giving away your product for free will affect the price we charge for a commercial license! We have no standard rule for this since the reasons for vendors to give away their products for free vary wildly. If you send a explanation of the situation including how you make money on your product to [EMAIL PROTECTED] am sure we will propose something. A problem might be since our sales staff (like any good sales staff) likes to concentrate on the big deals you might get inappropriate answers. In that case (but only in that case) you can send a inquire directly to me and I will try to work something out. As for dynamic vs static linking, it does not really matter. See the FSF GPL FAQ (at fsf.org) for more information about this issue. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: client library no longer LGPL licensing
On Thu, 2002-09-26 at 01:05, Ken Menzel wrote: Does this also apply to non-open-source but free applications? For example, we give away Escapade for free - always have, always will, at least for the minimal version of the product. If we develop a non-free version of Escapade that uses mysqlclient, what happens then? We also distribute statically-linked and dynamically-linked versions of the product, and I would be interested in knowing MySQL's position on this issue in regards to licensing. Excellent question and our point also, we give away our non-open source application as well and do not charge a per user/copy/customer charge for the client or restrict copies. We DO have licensed servers and and we DO charge for using our servers. I have been contacted be e-mail by MySQL licensing and am looking forward to having my questions answered. We are still using MySQL 3 so I think we are OK. But was planning on going to MySQL 4 soon. I wonder how this affect the Mascon people (Neat little app also). See the answer I gave to Ed. As for Mascon they would also need a commercial license. We are promoting MySQL development tools so we would give lower commercial license prices for those products. So if you use MySQL in a proprietary product you will need a license in all cases independent of price point. But that commercial license might have special term in special circumstances. Anyway I can understand MySQL's need to grow and would hope they continue to listen to us MySQL developers as they always have. (And I think they will). But I do feel this is an important change for anyone working with a windows client for MySQL and want to be able to earn dinner! And I would hope for open discussions. We all want MySQL to succeed as a DB and as a company. As for listening to you I hope we are still doing it. We can not do it as fast as we did in the beginning since it is a large difference in running a company with 2 people (when Monty and I started) or 50+ like now. But we do need the extra people to be able to keep up since MySQL is now a much more mature product with much more code. And it also takes a bit longer to handle a user community with a many millions of users compared a few thousand like we had initially. But if any of you have concerns about MySQL AB loosing our connection with the community please write me directly. But understand that it might take me a while to answer. I do get LOTS of email. /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: client library no longer LGPL licensing
On Tue, 2002-09-24 at 23:05, Ken Menzel wrote: Hi Everyone, I don't know if it makes a difference to anyone, but mysql client libraries are no longer LGPL. see http://www.mysql.com/doc/en/Copyright.html. (original licenses can be found in old source tar files documentation). I think this means, if you have an application that uses mysql as one of your databases don't include the library it unless your app is GPL also (or MySQL gives permission or changes back to LGPL). I guess you could put a link to the web site so users could download the package. Is that inconvienient? Well the GPL client is the 4.0 client. The 3.23 client is still LGPL. As for you app is GPL also we do not demand GPL. We will make a addition to the GPL in the client saying that we allow a list of other OSI (see opensource.org) approved OpenSource licenses also. Like the PHP license for example. So the limited GPL vs other OpenSource licenses compatibility should not be a problem. As for a link to the old client it will not work with future releases when we add things like prepared statements, warning system and other things that require protocol updates. But it still available as a part of MySQL 3.23 as said above. I don't know if this would affect anyone, anyway, but I found it interesting that the licensing quietly changed and I wondered if anyone else cared or if this change cleared up some previous confusion and is a good thing? Most people are not affected by the change since it affects application when they are distributed. But people who has not followed our licensing guidelines before could have to pay us for commercial licenses this time. And that is the meaning of this. We did this change in 4.0 while it was a alpha/early-development release since we did not want to make the change to fast. We did change the website to reflect the new GPL client when we made 4.0 beta a few weeks ago. The change is made to avoid lots of discussions about when the GPL is effective. Basically we follow the same rules as we always have about when we want people to pay us for a commercial license but now we have a better legal ground to base it on. I hope it will save us (especially me since I have become the MySQL licensing guru :-) lots of discussion about who has to pay and who can use the GPL version. And of course this is totally in the line with what the Free Software Foundation and RMS wants since it spreads free software. We can still make exceptions and allow free use if there is a good reason for it (But not for I like to make money without freeing my code or paying you like reasons). So the goal is to get money out of the people who distribute non OpenSource application using MySQL. We need the income for the much larger development team we now have. And the cost of running a real company instead of the administrative mess that Monty and I had earlier (And that mess was very very bad for my ease of mind). Basically in the early years of MySQL we spend all out time on the technical stuff and did the absolute minimum to run the commercial/administrative side. And you can not do that forever. Monty and I also have this desire to work less than 15h/day 350+ days a year as we did the first years. So all in all I hope everybody understands this change and supports it! /David MySQL CoFounder PS: I might not be able to answer any followups to this for a long time. - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Distributed Fulltext?
On Fri, 2002-02-15 at 02:44, Alex Aulbach wrote: Wednesday, from David Axmark: Your other point about exact vs. approximate answers is unclear, I expect that Google's answers are exact for their currently available indexes at any given time. But even if they are approximate, I'd be happy with that too. The scoring on a FULLTEXT search in Mysql is exact but based on a formula that is approximate anyway. No, MySQL returns all data according to a search. Web engines return what they they find on one search machine. So you can get different results with Google every time you hit refresh if you are routed to different machines. This had happened to me when I was looking for the number of matches and not the result itself. So we should try to make fulltext searches with a limit between 10 and 100 be fast to be closer to google. I have also head about some other things web search engines do since I know some people at FAST but I have forgot that already. My opinion is, that mySQL itself never should try to find approximate matches. This is against the definition of SQL itself. SQL is a fourth generation language. That means, if you say SELECT, the engine selects. And it has to be as exactly that, what I have searched, every time, on every machine in any combination with the same data. So SQL needs a new language construct to make an approximate search. But what is an approximate search? How is approximate defined? I agree, If there is a good technical reason for doing so. I would be willing to add a keyword APPROXIMATE for such a thing. But it would have to be a extremely clear even to uninitiated that this is approximate. I can se such a feature used by the people who build search engines with MySQL. I don't think it is a good idea to implement it in this way. Approximazation must be always done on the application level, cause it is highly dependend on application, what an approximate result could be. We will try to make every feature as good as possible. But we do have limited resources. Exactly. FTS is not so important as other features and people which want you to include a new feature should think about supporting mysql with money. :-) But (yes, we support mysql! :-) I think the need is growing rapidly, cause the amount of data, that has to be indexed is growing over the years. And other DB's have much more experices with it. Currently we can live with the speed. Those who cannot live with it should buy better machines, think about their SE-concept or support mysql. Search engines techniques are *not* trivial, so the last way is in my eyes one of the cheapest. Well there is always the option of sponsoring further fulltext development. We have a guy who has been working on the GNU fulltext engines who is interesting in working with MySQL fulltext. But for the moment we can not afford it. This was my first thought: People write about speed problems and how to cluster and so on. Things, that I would calculate with weeks and high TCO. But it maybe much cheaper to pay mySQL for this. How much do you estimate would it cost to implement inverted files? I think this is difficult, cause Sergei told me, that he couldn't use mySQL-index files any more. If needed we could add a new index file (.MYT ?). But what would require some internal changes of unknown (to me) size. But if this is needed for continues development of fulltext we will do it. I just ask, nothing special in sight, but many questions from everyone who needs it. Cause FTS is a feature which highly improves the value of a web site. And coustomers have no problem to pay for things they think they get money for. FTS is such a thing. But perhaps if we know, under which circumstances FTS is improved, it is easier for us to find a possible way to share the costs for it or find a compromise. I also understand, if mySQL don't want to speak about it here. I think it is also important for us, how much it can be theoretically improved. My calculations showed me a theoretical speed up of factor 100 or so. This is ... wow. But in live everything is most times slower... We want to do things as fast as possible in most cases. We will try to do this for text-search also but the question is how long time it will take before we finish. So if some of you are interested in sponsoring this (or know about others who might be) write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or like this... maybe we find coustomers who needs it. Think it's possible. My personal feeling is and my stomach says, that fulltext indexing is a feature, which needs to be expanded. We do have Sergei working on it still. And we do plan to expand it during the coming months. But the way to get our attention in cases like this is simple. Give us some core or money! /David - Before posting, please check: http
Re: Distributed Fulltext?
On Tue, 2002-02-12 at 15:38, Steve Rapaport wrote: David Axmark writes: So the standard answer with Apples and Oranges certainly apply here! More like Äpplen och Apelsiner, that is, different but similar. You Swedish guys should know. Thanks for answering, David, I appreciate the attention from a founder. I also appreciate your point that Google is updating continuously and therefore not always caught up to the current state of the web. But isn't that a problem with indexing speed, not with search speed? Their search speed is still amazing, as is Altavista, and most of the other engines. Your other point about exact vs. approximate answers is unclear, I expect that Google's answers are exact for their currently available indexes at any given time. But even if they are approximate, I'd be happy with that too. The scoring on a FULLTEXT search in Mysql is exact but based on a formula that is approximate anyway. No, MySQL returns all data according to a search. Web engines return what they they find on one search machine. So you can get different results with Google every time you hit refresh if you are routed to different machines. This had happened to me when I was looking for the number of matches and not the result itself. So we should try to make fulltext searches with a limit between 10 and 100 be fast to be closer to google. I have also head about some other things web search engines do since I know some people at FAST but I have forgot that already. I'll summarize this thread best I can. From the math I used, we started with my estimate of 10^9, which was mistaken. The real figure was 10^6, that is, Google searches fulltext about a million times faster than Mysql. Then we used Google's 1 machines +DRAM indexing to reduce the gap to 10^2, or 100 times faster. I would say we should reduce it even further but that could be discussed. It turns out that 100 times is about the factor that is causing my application problems. If it just ran 100 times faster it would be about as fast as a regular indexed search, and I'd be happy. A few people suggested that Mysql shouldn't try to be faster, I (and some high-support customers like Mike Wexler) disagreed. And Alex Aulbach, bless him, actually did his homework and showed that things could be much improved with smart index techniques like inverted files. We will try to make every feature as good as possible. But we do have limited resources. Then Sergei Golubchik wrote back to say he had taken some of the good ideas and inserted them into the TODO list, although he had higher priorities at the time. And I was satisfied for now, although my application still isn't working satisfactorily due to a really slow and CPU-hungry FULLTEXT search. Well there is always the option of sponsoring further fulltext development. We have a guy who has been working on the GNU fulltext engines who is interesting in working with MySQL fulltext. But for the moment we can not afford it. So if some of you are interested in sponsoring this (or know about others who might be) write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] I think that's our story so far. Steve Rapaport Director, Technical Services A-Tono - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
Re: Distributed Fulltext?
On Fri, 2002-02-08 at 11:11, Steve Rapaport wrote: I said: Why is it that Altavista can index terabytes overnight and return a fulltext boolean for the WHOLE WEB within a second, and Mysql takes so long? On Friday 08 February 2002 08:56, Vincent Stoessel wrote: Apples and oranges. Yeah, I know. But let's see if we can make some distinctions. If, say, Google, can search 2 trillion web pages, averaging say 70k bytes each, in 1 second, and Mysql can search 22 million records, with an index on 40 bytes each, in 3 seconds (my experience) on a good day, what's the order of magnitude difference? Roughly 10^9. Have you seen the /hardware/ run that enterprise with? Irrelevant, you're unlikely to get 9 orders of magnitude difference with faster hardware or even with clustering. Actually not since Google runs on 1 of machines. And if you search for a while you will notice that you will get different answers (at least I have had troubles with this). Also I have used google to track occurrences of certain words over time. And according to google some words (with millions of occurrences) changed with about 40% in a week. So they simple provide approximate answers while MySQL has to provide exact answers. So the standard answer with Apples and Oranges certainly apply here! /David - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
RE: mysql.org
of the Britt registration requirement at the site - it is no longer required Britt for downloading files rather it is a membership registration Britt only now.] Nice that you learn. But why did you include it in the first place? I clearly remember telling some NuSphere people at lenght why registration was a bad idea during our early discussions. It does not inspire confidence to start a community by breaking the GPL and doing a community site without involving the community. I expect you to release the souce code any day now. But the GPL requires you to provide a way to the user to get source code at the time you distribute the linked binary. Not some months afterwords! Also from your licensing page: Q: Can I use MySQL without paying NuSphere a license fee? A: Our products come with source code for generic MySQL without Gemini. If you build MySQL yourself, you are free to distribute it without incurring a license fee. If, however, you use Enhanced MySQL, the version of MySQL that has the NuSphere Gemini table type compiled, you will need to pay us a license fee. Since Gemini is statically linked with MySQL this is laughing at the GPL! Britt As far as NuSphere's contribution to MySQL, it is disappointing Britt to see our efforts discounted so quickly. At a minimum there Britt are specific bug fixes, features, and language statements Britt focused around transaction support in the server that are in Britt MySQL due to NuSphere's efforts in cooperation with Monty. The Britt Gemini table handler itself is already part of MySQL and is Britt licensed under the GPL - go find ha_gemini.cc and you will see Britt it we checked it in long ago in V4 and again in 3.23 when V4 Britt was late. The Gemini component itself will be released via Britt mysql.org as GPL as previously announced - note that Gemini Britt itself is not a derivative of MySQL in any way - it's roots Britt date back to long before MySQL existed. We appreciate the technical work you have done and are doing, but the table hander interface code is a small pice of code that is totally useless without Gemini itself. And that file is HEAVILY based on ha_berkeley.cc. I see your contribution as being almost total in the marketing of MySQL as a side effect of marketing NuSphere. And Monty traveled twice from Finland to Bedford helping you with this under the impression that it should be GPL from the beginning. The Gemini that has not been released yet will be the first contribution from you. Britt Finally independent of the rest of this. I have the highest Britt respect for Monty and what he has done creating MySQL. I'm Britt certain we can move beyond this and make MySQL an even stronger Britt open source project and I encourage everyone move to a Britt constructive dialog. Britt, please remember that I personally and Monty as well appreciate you and your work for the MySQL community very much. And we are of course willing to continue the talks we had when I and Mårten visited NuSphere in Bedford last month. __ ___ ___ __ / |/ /_ __/ __/ __ \/ / David Axmark [EMAIL PROTECTED] / /|_/ / // /\ \/ /_/ / /__ MySQL AB, http://www.mysql.com/ /_/ /_/\_, /___/\___\_\___/ Uppsala, Sweden - Before posting, please check: http://www.mysql.com/manual.php (the manual) http://lists.mysql.com/ (the list archive) To request this thread, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe, e-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Trouble unsubscribing? Try: http://lists.mysql.com/php/unsubscribe.php
