-----SAVE MySQL ----- Sign Petition

[[pl]ice]

Please sign up. Pass on to all other forums that U're signed on to.

It's for the best of all of us :(

http://helpmysql.org


Pls make it 'sticky' on somewhere relevant.

Thank you

[kahumba]

If "Monty" really cared about mysql he shouldn't sell it in the first place. What was he thinking? That Sun after paying $1 billion dollars would dance to his tune? Give me a break.
I'm myself a mysql user, but that Monty guy looks to me like a dodger who wanna create a "new mysql community" with actions backed by pure "good will" and sell it again some time later for another billion.
Yeah, call me troll if that's what you like.

[jrusso2]

Isn't the beauty part about open source is that you can fork it if you don't like it?

[starcannon]

I can't imagine that Oracle needs a petition to save the only other reasonable alternative to Access, and even if Oracle drops MySQL, as has been mentioned, a decent FOSS fork would likely result.

I'm not worried, perhaps I should be?(but I'm not).

[[pl]ice]

If "Monty" really cared about mysql he shouldn't sell it in the first place. What was he thinking? That Sun after paying $1 billion dollars would dance to his tune? Give me a break.
I'm myself a mysql user, but that Monty guy looks to me like a dodger who wanna create a "new mysql community" with actions backed by pure "good will" and sell it again some time later for another billion.
Yeah, call me troll if that's what you like.

good answer, but bottom line, are you willing to pay to use MySQL for your projects?

[gnomeuser]

ice;8600925']Please sign up. Pass on to all other forums that U're signed on to.

It's for the best of all of us :(

http://helpmysql.org


Pls make it 'sticky' on somewhere relevant.

Thank you

If you insist on basically spamming the forum, you should at least make a decently argued post explaining why and use proper English.

Regardless MySQL is GPLed, and we already have several projects including Montys own MariaDB (there's also Drizzle and at least one more I can't remember the name off) all of which are forks of MySQL. All this is about is the MySQL name and the rights to relicense for commercialization.

The first is irrelevant as any technologically superior solution will win in the end, the second is just sweet irony since this is coming from the FSF front who normally claim that the GPL is the end all, be all of licenses. Regardless, given the licensing the freedom which the FSF so holier than thou proclaims important enough to act as divisive fundamentalists remains intact so they pretty much lost the moral high ground in this debate.

If they wanted to keep those two rights the owner of the copyright, effectively Monty himself, should have added a clause when selling MySQL AB to SUN in the first place.

Sorry, not signing. I believe doing so would reflect poorly on the Open Source world in making us look like unsatisfied children who take their ball when unhappy with the game. This is not how grown ups deal with their problems and in doing so Monty and his croonies have helped cost lots of SUN employees their job in aiding to hold back an agreement from the authorities. Actions for which they have shown exactly no remorse.

[Warpnow]

ice;8601098']good answer, but bottom line, are you willing to pay to use MySQL for your projects?

...You could just fork it, you'd never have to pay for MySQL in its current form. If Oracle wants to poor enough changes into it that MySQL is different from a version easily forked from the GPL version of it, and they want to charge for it...then why not?

If I want the free one, I'll just go with the free version or its forks.

[gnomeuser]

...You could just fork it, you'd never have to pay for MySQL in its current form. If Oracle wants to poor enough changes into it that MySQL is different from a version easily forked from the GPL version of it, and they want to charge for it...then why not?

If I want the free one, I'll just go with the free version or its forks.

He means in the situation where you product a product for which you do not wish to use the GPL. As MySQL (by virtue of it's GPL license) virally infects your code with "freedom" by forcing you to relicense all the code that uses MySQL you'll need to buy a separate license from the copyright holders (in this case SUN, soon to be Oracle). A fork of the GPL'ed code does not have the right to relicense like this.

[Frak]

ice;8601098']good answer, but bottom line, are you willing to pay to use MySQL for your projects?
Previous releases will remain Open Source. New versions will be forked.

Also, online petitions always work. Every time.

[wieman01]

Please keep it civil otherwise I need to close this thread. Stay on topic, avoid offensive language. Thanks.

[clanky]

Did I miss something? I can't see anything but civility, was a post deleted or something?

This has been discussed already and the genral consensus seemed to be meh!

This for mwe is the whole problem with many peoples' approach to open source software, it's not about the philosophy, it's not about freedom, it's about getting something for nothing. If the only reason that someone is worried about a commercial company acquiring the ownership of software is that they may end up having to pay to use something then they need to ask themselves how they think the development of the software is going to be funded.

The other thread on this focussed more on the misguided idea that Oracle would somehow want to shut down mySQL as they saw it as competition, while IMHO that argument was a non sequitur at least it wasn't "ZOMG I'm going to have to pay to use a product"

[wieman01]

Did I miss something? I can't see anything but civility, was a post deleted or something?
Yes, exactly.

[gnomeuser]

I wrote a more full explanation of my argument against this petition on my blog entitled: Why “helping MySQL” reflects poorly on us all (http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/why-helping-mysql-reflects-poorly-on-us-all/)

[CharlesA]

I wrote a more full explanation of my argument against this petition on my blog entitled: Why “helping MySQL” reflects poorly on us all (http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/why-helping-mysql-reflects-poorly-on-us-all/)

/thread.

[[pl]ice]

what do u think they will do with mysql once it's in priv company? found it? ...
it will go down the drain so their DB can bring more money home. There is no reason for buying it otherwise. Wakie wakie.

Also founding??? as it was mentioned in this post, guy got paid out for that.

[Keyper7]

The site tries to paint MySQL as the ultimate open-source messiah that is our only option against the evil clutches of Oracle's high prices. It completely ignores the existence of alternatives such as PostgreSQL. That arrogance alone makes me refuse to sign it.

[pwnst*r]

/thread.

Indeed.

Great blog post, gnomeuser.

[nerdy_kid]

If Oracle buys MySQL as part of Sun, database customers will pay the bill.

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.

If those IPRs fall into the hands of MySQL's primary competitor, then MySQL immediately ceases to be an alternative to Oracle's own high-priced products. So far, customers had the choice to use MySQL in new projects instead of Oracle's products. Some large companies even migrated (switched) from Oracle to MySQL for existing software solutions. And every one could credibly threaten Oracle's salespeople with using MySQL unless a major discount was granted. If Oracle owns MySQL, it will only laugh when customers try this. Getting rid of this problem is easily worth one billion dollars a year to Oracle, if not more.


http://helpmysql.org/en/theissue/customerspaythebill

[NoaHall]

I've seen this before. We've (the open source developers/community) been asked to maintain the project as much as possible. Hey, we could always fork it. Let Oracle have MySql, they'll never have OurSQL!

[nerdy_kid]

wouldnt that be copyright issues? 'cause if that's so easy, whats the big fuss about in the first place?

[NoaHall]

wouldnt that be copyright issues? 'cause if that's so easy, whats the big fuss about in the first place?

It's released under the GPL v2, if I remember correctly. The fuss is that it is mainly developed and supported by the company that invests in it. Previously Sun, now Oracle.

[dragos240]

I've seen this before. We've (the open source developers/community) been asked to maintain the project as much as possible. Hey, we could always fork it. Let Oracle have MySql, they'll never have OurSQL!

Lol. Yes, we can fork it if it seems mysql will be used for evil.

Also, they can change the license that mysql uses (gpl). So there's nothing stopping oracle from closing mysql.

[bluelamp999]

I've seen this before. We've (the open source developers/community) been asked to maintain the project as much as possible. Hey, we could always fork it. Let Oracle have MySql, they'll never have OurSQL!

OurSQL - Inspired! I love it!

[RiceMonster]

gnomeuser wrote a nice article on this. You may want to read it:

http://davidnielsen.wordpress.com/2010/01/03/why-helping-mysql-reflects-poorly-on-us-all/

[phrostbyte]

https://launchpad.net/drizzle

[zekopeko]

I've seen this before. We've (the open source developers/community) been asked to maintain the project as much as possible. Hey, we could always fork it. Let Oracle have MySql, they'll never have OurSQL!

You are ignoring the larger issue. Oracle, by buying MySQL AB, bought the right to licences the code as closed source. Even if you fork MySQL (as has been done) you can't re-licence it for commercial closed-source use. That pays the bills and gets you more paid developers as is said in the part OP quoted.

Oracle is for profit business and its acting like one. The blame is solely on the people that sold MySQL to Sun without thinking of possible outcomes in the future.

The only solution that I see is either making Sun spin-off the MySQL division in its own company that will not be sold to Oracle (and making Sun less valuable) or the people that profited from selling MySQL to Sun returning 1 billion dollars back to Sun, in effect buying MySQL back.

[AgentZ86]

I'm not sure I understand what buying a GPL licensed software would actually do ?

I mean isn't it no different then getting it for free ?

I no sooner have any right over it then does someone who purchased a copy ?
Even if they purchased the company that distributed GPL copies as far as I can see they are still under the GPL license.

Am I missing something ?

[zekopeko]

I'm not sure I understand what buying a GPL licensed software would actually do ?

I mean isn't it no different then getting it for free ?

I no sooner have any right over it then does someone who purchased a copy ?
Even if they purchased the company that distributed GPL copies as far as I can see they are still under the GPL license.

Am I missing something ?

/me bashes head against the wall

Did you even read what is the issue? By buying a company that has copyright over GPL software (because to get your patch in that software you have to give that company the right to re-licence it to any other licence, even closed-source one) you are getting the right to change the licence to a close source one. That is why simply forking MySQL isn't THE answer to the problem.

[dragos240]

/me bashes head against the wall

Did you even read what is the issue? By buying a company that has copyright over GPL software (because to get your patch in that software you have to give that company the right to re-licence it to any other licence, even closed-source one) you are getting the right to change the licence to a close source one. That is why simply forking MySQL isn't THE answer to the problem.

You can download the latest version that was licensed under the GPL and fork that version.

[NoaHall]

You can download the latest version that was licensed under the GPL and fork that version.

And then the only difference will be that if the original project's licence changes, it will ONLY APPLY TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. The fork won't be affected - it's been released under the GPL, and one of the main points of it is "permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version".

The following (huge) problem is that there's no big company to support your fork, so development is.. very, very slow.

[nerdy_kid]

And then the only difference will be that if the original project's licence changes, it will ONLY APPLY TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. The fork won't be affected - it's been released under the GPL, and one of the main points of it is "permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version".

The following (huge) problem is that there's no big company to support your fork, so development is.. very, very slow.

but wouldnt big community be able to fix that? I mean, MySQL is a big deal, so if the Linux community made an offical fork, why couldnt it be developed at the same speed as Linux? Since its so important and all. forgive me if im being ignorant here....

[NoaHall]

but wouldnt big community be able to fix that? I mean, MySQL is a big deal, so if the Linux community made an offical fork, why couldnt it be developed at the same speed as Linux? Since its so important and all. forgive me if im being ignorant here....

If every single open-source developer develop it, it would still amount to very little compared to what companies bring to it. Oracle's MySQL would over-take very quickly the open-source fork.

[Frak]

but wouldnt big community be able to fix that? I mean, MySQL is a big deal, so if the Linux community made an offical fork, why couldnt it be developed at the same speed as Linux? Since its so important and all. forgive me if im being ignorant here....
Yeah? And who do you propose work on it?

[nerdy_kid]

Yeah? And who do you propose work on it?

NoaHall's point fried my suggestion.

[NoaHall]

the same people who work on the rest of FOSS software.

You mean companies that support them ? :)

Projects without support tend to be the little ones. Ones which don't need much work. MySQL would need a LOT of work to maintain and perfect.

[nerdy_kid]

You mean companies that support them ? :)

Projects without support tend to be the little ones. Ones which don't need much work. MySQL would need a LOT of work to maintain and perfect.

missed my edit :S

ok, well i stand corrected. To be honest, i didnt know that we had much big company support.

[NoaHall]

missed my edit :S

ok, well i stand corrected. To be honest, i didnt know that we had much big company support.

Really?
Canonical(if we means Ubuntu), Novell, IBM, Intel, Google, Oracle and Red Hat are the most well known ones.

See here - https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php

[Frak]

Really?
Canonical(if we means Ubuntu), Novell, IBM, Intel, Google, Oracle and Red Hat are the most well known ones.

See here - https://www.linuxfoundation.org/publications/linuxkerneldevelopment.php
Let's take OpenOffice.org for a moment.

http://www.gnome.org/~michael/images/2008-09-29-overall.png

That is the average code commits to the project by affiliation. As you can see, Sun was really the only one who contributed anything worth noting, by a landslide.

[zekopeko]

You can download the latest version that was licensed under the GPL and fork that version.


And then the only difference will be that if the original project's licence changes, it will ONLY APPLY TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. The fork won't be affected - it's been released under the GPL, and one of the main points of it is "permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version".

The following (huge) problem is that there's no big company to support your fork, so development is.. very, very slow.

$DEITY!!! Both of you missed the point. If this new company that would maintain the fork can't sell MySQL under a commercial, closed-source licence then it can't get paid to maintain MySQL.

Thats how MySQL AB (the company that maintained MySQL before being sold to Sun) paid the bills. By selling MySQL and support to companies that wanted to use it in their closed source applications.

[zekopeko]

Let's take OpenOffice.org for a moment.

http://www.gnome.org/~michael/images/2008-09-29-overall.png

That is the average code commits to the project by affiliation. As you can see, Sun was really the only one who contributed anything worth noting, by a landslide.

Thats not really fair. Sun sucks big time when OO.org is concerned.
They aren't very friendly to external patches.
It would have been nice if they created a foundation and administered it through that.

[nerdy_kid]

Let's take OpenOffice.org for a moment.

http://www.gnome.org/~michael/images/2008-09-29-overall.png

That is the average code commits to the project by affiliation. As you can see, Sun was really the only one who contributed anything worth noting, by a landslide.

wow

i knew about Sun and google, but not the rest.
Now i see why it would take us forever to develop a project that size.

[sdowney717]

there is always SQLite
http://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html
the most widely deployed sql database is sqlite.

I dont know how it would scale up size wise to mysql etc...
It will continue to improve over time.

[koenn]

sqlite is something you'd see embedded in demos, prototypes, and stand-alone applications. It's no alternative for a database server or client-server apps.

[phrostbyte]

And then the only difference will be that if the original project's licence changes, it will ONLY APPLY TO THE ORIGINAL PROJECT. The fork won't be affected - it's been released under the GPL, and one of the main points of it is "permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version".

The following (huge) problem is that there's no big company to support your fork, so development is.. very, very slow.

If MySQL went closed source completely, you know how many very powerful organisations that would **** off? This isn't some kids weedend project, this is a DB that is widely used and deployed. I don't think a fork will have much a problem finding commercial support.

But I doubt MySQL will be closed by Oracle anyway. They've owned InnoDB for YEARS and it's still open source.

I think this guy is being lame. He's probably cashed in $100s of millions by selling his DB to Sun and now he wants to control what Sun does with it. That's being an Indian giver of epic proportions.

[RiceMonster]

there is always SQLite
http://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html
the most widely deployed sql database is sqlite.

I dont know how it would scale up size wise to mysql etc...
It will continue to improve over time.

sqlite is certainly not a replacement for MySQL. It would probably be pretty silly to run a website with it.

[phrostbyte]

sqlite is certainly not a replacement for MySQL. It would probably be pretty silly to run a website with it.

Drizzle is though. It's like a SQlite designed for web sites (it's EXTREMELY scalable). It's also a fork of MySQL.

[phrostbyte]

Oh and Drizzle is _extremely_ well funded, throwing the contention that a fork of MySQL wouldn't get commercial support. And you bet the funding would only increase if MySQL suddenly went closed source. But that is very unlikely to happen, even under Oracle. (IMO)

[Frak]

Thats not really fair. Sun sucks big time when OO.org is concerned.
They aren't very friendly to external patches.
It would have been nice if they created a foundation and administered it through that.
Firefox is no different, neither is webkit. Firefox is nearly exclusively developed by the Mozilla Corporation (technically through the Foundation, but the developers are employed directly through the corporation). Webkit is almost exclusively developed by various corporations. I mean, it's great that they are being actively worked on by corporations, because they're great projects, but community code itself is tiny. From looking at the Linux Kernel development, somewhere around 60% of it is developed by corporations. Though, the Linux kernel is the only project I've seen that has amassed such a large amount of community contributions. Everything else, though, meh, corporations manage it.

[phrostbyte]

Firefox is no different, neither is webkit. Firefox is nearly exclusively developed by the Mozilla Corporation (technically through the Foundation, but the developers are employed directly through the corporation). Webkit is almost exclusively developed by various corporations. I mean, it's great that they are being actively worked on by corporations, because they're great projects, but community code itself is tiny. From looking at the Linux Kernel development, somewhere around 60% of it is developed by corporations. Though, the Linux kernel is the only project I've seen that has amassed such a large amount of community contributions. Everything else, though, meh, corporations manage it.

And what is your point Frak? Is this a bad thing? People are making a living writing open source. If anything, that shows that "you can't make money with open source" stuff that sometimes goes around is a bunch of crap.

[Frak]

And what is your point Frak? Is this a bad thing? People are making a living writing open source. If anything, that shows that "you can't make money with open source" stuff that sometimes goes around is a bunch of crap.
Just saying community code contributes are fairly minor. Now, if a company wants to Open Source a program, be my guest. I'm not the one giving business decisions, here. I'm just saying that, all these great programs that we use every day may in fact be heavily funded through corporate interests, and not through community contributions (or many, at least).

[phrostbyte]

Just saying community code contributes are fairly minor. Now, if a company wants to Open Source a program, be my guest. I'm not the one giving business decisions, here. I'm just saying that, all these great programs that we use every day may in fact be heavily funded through corporate interests, and not through community contributions (or many, at least).

Well I would say it's both. I use Geany, and I'm pretty sure that wasn't made by a big company. Same with Rhythmbox or Gnome-Do/Docky.

If your point is that commercial interests are helping a lot in the development of open source, that is true. Even government/academic funding are involved in a number of areas. If you pay some developer or professor to work on something full time yes you'll get pretty good results because the person can focus their entire attentions on the project. Sometimes (actually a lot of times) a person who is a community developer gets hired to work full-time. This is true with Mozilla also, they hire people who have experience with the Firefox codebase. So it's kind of a unimportant distinction.

Both commercial/community has the same end result though, and that is more and better open source gets produced.

[phrostbyte]

Actually to highlight a government contribution, the CMake build system, something which KDE uses and I personally use, is completely funded as part of a government research program from the US National Institutes of Health. Oh and GNU GPG? Funded completely by the government of Germany! DARPA funding is also all over open source, you'd be surprised on how much stuff other then the Internet DARPA has helped fund. :)

One thing this disappoints me about the FSF is they used to be more active in acquiring government funding for free software in computer science just as medicine, physics and astronomy are heavily funded. That message of the importance of government funding in software seems to been lost in the recent FSF philosophy.

But as you see it's not even just commercial companies like Mozilla/Intel or whatever involved here. It's a whole world thing. Community, corporate, academic, non-profit and governmental. That's what makes open source so great.

[zekopeko]

Firefox is no different, neither is webkit. Firefox is nearly exclusively developed by the Mozilla Corporation (technically through the Foundation, but the developers are employed directly through the corporation). Webkit is almost exclusively developed by various corporations. I mean, it's great that they are being actively worked on by corporations, because they're great projects, but community code itself is tiny. From looking at the Linux Kernel development, somewhere around 60% of it is developed by corporations. Though, the Linux kernel is the only project I've seen that has amassed such a large amount of community contributions. Everything else, though, meh, corporations manage it.

You misunderstood. I'm referring to the situation that Sun created with its selfish management of a potentially great FOSS product. If Sun wasn't making OO.org hard to contribute to there would be no need for Go-OO.

[sudoer541]

not interested.

[NoaHall]

not interested.

You should be. Almost all of the websites you'll ever visit rely on MySQL.

[133794m3r]

http://www.helpmysql.org/en/petition

I was walking around mpc and saw an article linking to this little bit of news, Ok it's a huge bit of news. If oracle buys out mysql, then everything is all over for everyone. It'd be almost as bad as if well, if let's say our lovely linux kernel was bought out by m$ and they held all rights to all of our kernels. If oracle manages to get this to go through, the end of mysql is in the near future. I for one know i don't wnat to have some closed source company moving in on an open source platform and completely shutting it down. I don't know why sun would do this besides well the obvious bit about money, but the least we can do is sign the petition to make sure mysql isn't ruined. For without it, we're only left with oracle, or mssql. That is a world that i don't want to live in...

[alphaniner]

.

[Chronon]

http://www.helpmysql.org/en/petition

I was walking around mpc and saw an article linking to this little bit of news, Ok it's a huge bit of news. If oracle buys out mysql, then everything is all over for everyone. It'd be almost as bad as if well, if let's say our lovely linux kernel was bought out by m$ and they held all rights to all of our kernels. If oracle manages to get this to go through, the end of mysql is in the near future. I for one know i don't wnat to have some closed source company moving in on an open source platform and completely shutting it down. I don't know why sun would do this besides well the obvious bit about money, but the least we can do is sign the petition to make sure mysql isn't ruined. For without it, we're only left with oracle, or mssql. That is a world that i don't want to live in...

Chicken Little, is that you?

It's not clear to me that closing the source is in their best commercial interest. People who want to include the code in their proprietary ventures will still need to seek a proprietary license agreement with Oracle. I don't see that cutting out the open source community really gains them that much more profit.

Second, your comparison to the Linux kernel is ill founded. No single person or entity owns the copyright to the Linux kernel (to the very best of my knowledge), so it's highly non-trivial for a single agent to buy the rights to the entire kernel. If an agent did succeed in buying the copyright from all of the contributors to the kernel there appears to be enough corporate interest in a FOSS kernel that a GPL fork would probably be better supported than the closed, commercial kernel in this scenario.

This all seems like a bunch of FUD to me.

[dragos240]

http://www.roflcat.com/images/cats/270911970_db35fdd4ca.jpg

[juancarlospaco]

saving of what?, OpenSource dont die, just Fork it...
:)

[sdowney717]

sqlite is something you'd see embedded in demos, prototypes, and stand-alone applications. It's no alternative for a database server or client-server apps.

I wondered but they claim you can use it for around 100,000 hits per day


http://www.sqlite.org/whentouse.html

Websites

SQLite usually will work great as the database engine for low to medium traffic websites (which is to say, 99.9% of all websites). The amount of web traffic that SQLite can handle depends, of course, on how heavily the website uses its database. Generally speaking, any site that gets fewer than 100K hits/day should work fine with SQLite. The 100K hits/day figure is a conservative estimate, not a hard upper bound. SQLite has been demonstrated to work with 10 times that amount of traffic.


they do mention this


Situations Where Another RDBMS May Work Better

*

Client/Server Applications

If you have many client programs accessing a common database over a network, you should consider using a client/server database engine instead of SQLite. SQLite will work over a network filesystem, but because of the latency associated with most network filesystems, performance will not be great. Also, the file locking logic of many network filesystems implementation contains bugs (on both Unix and Windows). If file locking does not work like it should, it might be possible for two or more client programs to modify the same part of the same database at the same time, resulting in database corruption. Because this problem results from bugs in the underlying filesystem implementation, there is nothing SQLite can do to prevent it.

A good rule of thumb is that you should avoid using SQLite in situations where the same database will be accessed simultaneously from many computers over a network filesystem.
*

High-volume Websites

SQLite will normally work fine as the database backend to a website. But if you website is so busy that you are thinking of splitting the database component off onto a separate machine, then you should definitely consider using an enterprise-class client/server database engine instead of SQLite.

[koenn]

well, exactly - it's all there on that page you link to, and the things you quote.

sqlite may be adequate to drive even a reasonably busy website, but for one, it requires you have your database on the same machine as the web server. That puts limits to performance and scalability, and rules out a number of network layouts that you might want for security reasons.



Secondly, MySQL does a lot more than drive web sites - its a database system that is used for coorporate databases, client-server applications, complex applications such as document management systems, You can't (or shouldn't) do those with sqlite - as they state themselves quite clearly.

Apart from the performance and network issues, this is most likely because sqlite's locking mechanism makes it unsuitable for any procedure or application that uses the database for more than a few fractions of a second per query

With demo's; prototypes, and embedded in apps, you're usually be working single-user on one machine - so all of the above isn't an issue. That's where sqlite is appropriate. And maybe for small websites.

[zekopeko]

saving of what?, OpenSource dont die, just Fork it...
:)

Amazing how after 59 posts you still don't understand the problem. I bet you didn't even read the thread before posting.

[juancarlospaco]

I read the thread, so...

if you think that Open Source license dont protect open source proyects,
you need to fix the License,
if you think that Open Source license protects open source proyects,
you need to fork the proyect.
:)

[zekopeko]

I read the thread, so...

if you think that Open Source license dont protect open source proyects,
you need to fix the License,
if you think that Open Source license protects open source proyects,
you need to fork the proyect.
:)

And you still miss the point. Forking MySQL was never a problem. There are already 2 forks that I know of: Drizzle and MariaDB.
So for the n-time let me repeat what is the problem: copy-right for commercial, closed-source exploitation.