Oracle hard at work destroying another open source project

[Cuddles McKitten]

http://www.enterpriseirregulars.com/28665/internal-email-on-why-a-software-company-migrates-away-from-mysql/

Looks like Postgres and/or the fork of MySQL (whatever it's called -- I'm too lazy to look it up), will now become the standard open source database software.

[KiwiNZ]

It is simple good business. Sun was trading at a loss for a long time. Now that Oracle own Sun it is clear that it intends that the units it will keep will trade at a profit.

These moves should not come as a surprise to anyone. The purpose of any business is to make a profit.

[_outlawed_]

The purpose of any business is to make a profit.

Capitalism at it's finest.

[Sporkman]

Capitalism at it's finest.

It's actually an efficient way of managing & distributing scarce resources.

[Cuddles McKitten]

It is simple good business. Sun was trading at a loss for a long time. Now that Oracle own Sun it is clear that it intends that the units it will keep will trade at a profit.

These moves should not come as a surprise to anyone. The purpose of any business is to make a profit.

I could be wrong, but wasn't the original MySQL company's business model to hand it out for free (for free advertising) and just charge for enterprise-level support? Seems like they're mostly doing this to push people towards the Oracle database, except that it seems most would just go to MariaDB or Postgres.

[user1397]

geez let's not get too political already...

but yea i agree with kiwinz, but i do think that it's just a sad truth

[kevin11951]

From what I have read, this is not a big deal. The Community version (the one packaged in Ubuntu/Debian/etc...) still has everything left intact...

[MasterNetra]

It's actually an efficient way of managing & distributing scarce resources.

Heh, currency is about as efficient as pulling a boulder up a hill with a vine this day an age. We just haven't got around to coming up with a better more efficient and more humane system to replace it.

But yea, this is business as usual. Oracle is just doing what businesses do. Make money.

[NCLI]

It's actually an efficient way of managing & distributing scarce resources.

Oh, so that's why "A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reports that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000, and that the richest 10% of adults accounted for 85% of the world total. The bottom half of the world adult population owned 1% of global wealth."

-Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth)

Mods: This is not politics, I'm simply correcting a falsehood.

[cariboo]

This thread is starting to stray, please keep on topic.

[theraje]

I don't really see how this is "destroying" an open source project... anyone care to explain?

(I'm not be sarcastic, I just feel as though I'm missing something...)

[Cuddles McKitten]

I don't really see how this is "destroying" an open source project... anyone care to explain?

(I'm not be sarcastic, I just feel as though I'm missing something...)

Apparently it isn't because I read two knee-jerk articles that didn't process all the information. Update here:

http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2010/11/oracle-drops-innodb-from-mysql.php

InnoDB is still in the GPL version. So, in short, I'm an idiot.

[bryncoles]

Hey! I'm pretty sure stooping to personal insults are against the CoC. You should report yourself.

[bryncoles]

Hey! I'm pretty sure stooping to personal insults are against the CoC. Cuddles, you should report yourself!

*edit*

I was so incensed at Cuddles abuse of himself (or... herself...?) that I leapt to the defensive twice!

Apologies for they double post. I should report myself.

[forrestcupp]

It is simple good business. Sun was trading at a loss for a long time. Now that Oracle own Sun it is clear that it intends that the units it will keep will trade at a profit.

These moves should not come as a surprise to anyone. The purpose of any business is to make a profit.

It still sucks, though.

[koenn]

It's actually an efficient way of managing & distributing scarce resources.

except that the marginal cost of producing more copies of the same software approaches zero, so it's hardly a scarce resource -- unless it's made scarce artificially.

[user1397]

It still sucks, though.

/offtopic
lol forrestcupp...are you really just going to keep your bean count at 1337?

[theraje]

except that the marginal cost of producing more copies of the same software approaches zero, so it's hardly a scarce resource -- unless it's made scarce artificially.

I'm a bit fuzzy on this statement, too. I have two interpretations:

First interpretation is that you're saying a business that decides to no longer distribute software at their own (even marginal) expense means the business is being unethical.

Second interpretation is that you're saying a business is unethical if it sort of reneging on a contract.

The first interpretation I have problems with. Why should someone be punished because they once volunteered a service, but found later that the service isn't really benefiting them and decide to drop it?

The second interpretation I can agree with... businesses shouldn't participate in shell games. Giving someone the "Ol' Switch-a-Roo" is unethical, IMO.

[koenn]

I'm a bit fuzzy on this statement, too. I have two interpretations: ....

you missed my point.
Sporkman mentioned that "[selling stuff] is actually an efficient way of managing & distributing scarce resources." My point is merely that software isn't scarse, you can reproduce and distribute it at virtually no cost (as opposed to more traditional goods like, say, cars, where each additional piece requires the manufacturer to pay for raw materials to build it from, and logistics to store and ship it)

so, what _outlawed_said was correct : it's just capitalism at work : companies, in a capitalist economy, have little other options than trying to make more money than they spend.
In biological therms : they adapt to their environment.
In sociological terms: their behaviour is a product of the economical system they exist in.
In plain english : my post did not contain anything about ethics or moral judgment

[koenn]

I read the article the OP points to - I think it's pretty weak : high on opinion and interpretation, low on facts and substance.

Nonetheless, I find this Oracle sticking its hands in open source projects, interesting. One of the promises of open source or free softwxare is that it protects you against vendor lock-in and preserves your freedom to run that software when you like, how you like, for whatever purpose you like.

If the model is correct, a change of ownership shouldn't be able to affect that. In a worse case scenario, you can maintain it yourself - in the most often anticipated scenarios, when people are unhappy with the leadership or direction a program is going, a fork will emerge.


It should be interesting to see how all of that works in real life.

[oldsoundguy]

Oracle and many others are just trying to "make hay while the sun shines".
The handwriting is already on the wall on "resident" software held on a personal computer or office network .. and that is that there will, eventually, be no such animal!
Computing WILL be done in the cloud (for a fee) when it becomes totally secure. That means that the PROGRAMS will reside in the cloud also.(Intuit and Adobe are dabbling in that right now. As is Microsoft with its Photo editing system for Win 7!)
The only thing that will be on most computers will be a basic operating system (any system will do) that covers turning the computer on and keeps it running .. managing the internet connection and display/audio
.... and a browser system (note the word SYSTEM).
There WILL be exceptions and hold outs, of course, but that is the way things will move as the software developers can then keep 100% control of their programs and piracy will become a thing of the past.
Yes, the motive IS profit.

[forrestcupp]

/offtopic
lol forrestcupp...are you really just going to keep your bean count at 1337?

Until I have a reason not to. ;)

I don't use Ubuntu much anymore, so I primarily just hang out in the discussion subforums.

[Quadunit404]

Oracle: We <3 our wallets.

Corporate greed at its finest: charge for everything, including stuff that's supposed to be free.

[koenn]

charge for ... stuff that's supposed to be free.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

[Quadunit404]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

As far as I know MySQL is supposed to be freely available (with paid support available) and now Oracle is going to require you to pay for it. Yes, I know that free software can be sold, but what about free software that's meant to be free as in beer AND freedom?

Looks like it's time to begin transitioning my site to PostgreSQL (now if only WordPress had multi-database support...)

[koenn]

As far as I know MySQL is supposed to be freely available (with paid support available) and now Oracle is going to require you to pay for it. ...
"supposed to" is a matter of opinion. That doesn't count.

[Quadunit404]

"supposed to" is a matter of opinion. That doesn't count.

All right, you win.

[kevin11951]

As far as I know MySQL is supposed to be freely available (with paid support available) and now Oracle is going to require you to pay for it. Yes, I know that free software can be sold, but what about free software that's meant to be free as in beer AND freedom?

Looks like it's time to begin transitioning my site to PostgreSQL (now if only WordPress had multi-database support...)

The OPEN SOURCE version of MySQL has remained UNTOUCHED! Relax :guitar:

[forrestcupp]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_software

Do we have to have another argument about how in order to sell FOSS, you have to prey on people's ignorance? All it would take is one person buying it, then releasing it for free to the entire world.

edit: One exception would be a game, where the code is free but the content is not. The code doesn't do you much good without the content.

[koenn]

Do we have to have another argument about how in order to sell FOSS, you have to prey on people's ignorance? All it would take is one person buying it, then releasing it for free to the entire world.

edit: One exception would be a game, where the code is free but the content is not. The code doesn't do you much good without the content.

I do not think that on order to make money off FOSS, you have to prey on people's ignorance. You do have to be capable of devising a business model that does not evolve around selling bits.

your 'one' exception is a good example. There are others.
In general, they'll be about adding value to the bits - be it content to a game engine, domain expertise, consultancy, system integration sollutions, ...

[forrestcupp]

I do not think that on order to make money off FOSS, you have to prey on people's ignorance. You do have to be capable of devising a business model that does not evolve around selling bits.

your 'one' exception is a good example. There are others.
In general, they'll be about adding value to the bits - be it content to a game engine, domain expertise, consultancy, system integration sollutions, ...

Right, but there's a difference between making money off of FOSS and selling FOSS software. The person you quoted was talking about how the software used to be free of charge with paid support, but now there's the rumor that they may end up selling the software.

[koenn]

Right, but there's a difference between making money off of FOSS and selling FOSS software. The person you quoted was talking about how the software used to be free of charge with paid support, but now there's the rumor that they may end up selling the software.
and the link I posted was meant to indicate that FOSS is not inherently free of charge, so anyone can try to sell. Even Oracle.

[koenn]

All right, you win.
too easy.

MySQL has been available under 2 licenses for as long as I can remember.
One the GPL, the other a commercial license. Same programs, same code, different terms. Also : different price.
http://web.archive.org/web/20040403230139/www.mysql.com/products/pricing.html

[forrestcupp]

and the link I posted was meant to indicate that FOSS is not inherently free of charge, so anyone can try to sell. Even Oracle.

Right. And in that case, you either have to prey on the ignorant or have content that isn't free.

[koenn]

Right. And in that case, you either have to prey on the ignorant or have content that isn't free.
or add any other kind of value.
we're going in circles with this, we're back at post #30.

In this particular case, the "Community version' is available for download at no cost and GPL-licensed, while OEMs, ISVs and VARs can purchase commercial licenses. That was already the case even before SUN acquired mysql. The commercial offerings also come with Oracle support contracts etc. There's some of that added value right there.

Is Oracle preying on the ignorant by creating different offerings for different target groups ?

[MooPi]

It is simple good business. Sun was trading at a loss for a long time. Now that Oracle own Sun it is clear that it intends that the units it will keep will trade at a profit.

These moves should not come as a surprise to anyone. The purpose of any business is to make a profit.

I disagree strongly ! Oracle/ Larry Ellison bought a leopard and now they want to turn it into a jaguar. If your interested in using open sourced software choose something other than what Oracle is holding. The same for java and Open Office and for that matter everyone should move away from fat 32. Same concept different owner.

[Dustin2128]

Saw it coming. Anything else I need to fork before its destroyed by oracle?

[forrestcupp]

or add any other kind of value.
we're going in circles with this, we're back at post #30.

In this particular case, the "Community version' is available for download at no cost and GPL-licensed, while OEMs, ISVs and VARs can purchase commercial licenses. That was already the case even before SUN acquired mysql. The commercial offerings also come with Oracle support contracts etc. There's some of that added value right there.

Is Oracle preying on the ignorant by creating different offerings for different target groups ?

Right, we're going in circles. No, they're not preying on the ignorant, because you're paying for support, not for the software. It's perfectly legal, ethical, and acceptable for an OEM to use the free of charge GPL version without support. The only thing they're paying for is support, which is not software.

So we're back to the fact that if you charge for FOSS software, you either have to prey on the ignorant or add content that isn't free.

[czr114]

It all comes down to the definition of what the "project" is.

If we see a project as a name, a logo, and a website, then maybe that can go in the wrong direction.

If we see a project as a collection of people working on a codebase to accomplish a specific task, then no company can destroy a FOSS project. A company is free to fork it and commercialize it (within the GPL), while the people who built it up are free to continue on building up the free codebase which has already existed.

Everything GPL will stay GPL, and everyone who wants to volunteer can still volunteer.

The community can maintain compatibility with everything but the inclusion of some dolphin artwork.

I wouldn't call that "destroying" it. It's not like Oracle has found a way to remove the nuts and bolts from free circulation and will shortly be ripping MySQL from our hands and hard drives.

[forrestcupp]

I wouldn't call that "destroying" it. It's not like Oracle has found a way to remove the nuts and bolts from free circulation and will shortly be ripping MySQL from our hands and hard drives.

That's very true. Finding someone to continue development is a different story, though.

[czr114]

That's very true. Finding someone to continue development is a different story, though.

Everyone who developed before can still develop now. The only change is that other peoples' money may no longer be funding ongoing releases of new free code like it was before.

If the community wants to continue developing a community asset, then they can, because it's free as in software, and that can't be revoked, even if somebody else can't keep paying programmers.

That's the fundamental difference between free as in software and free as in beer.

[forrestcupp]

Everyone who developed before can still develop now. The only change is that other peoples' money may no longer be funding ongoing releases of new free code like it was before.

If the community wants to continue developing a community asset, then they can, because it's free as in software, and that can't be revoked, even if somebody else can't keep paying programmers.

That's the fundamental difference between free as in software and free as in beer.
I hear what you're saying, but if you have a group of devs that are being paid to work on something, what are the odds they will continue to work on it if they stop getting paid?

And if they don't, what are the odds that "the community" will just pick up such a huge project, figure out how it was coded, and just volunteer to keep it going? It's a good philosophy, but there have been many times where it just doesn't work because people just don't have the time to take up something so huge and volunteer all their time for it.

Compiz is one great example. Everyone ditched it, and now you have one guy maintaining it, and he still hasn't even completely figured out how the original devs implemented everything with their coding.

[czr114]

I hear what you're saying, but if you have a group of devs that are being paid to work on something, what are the odds they will continue to work on it if they stop getting paid?

And if they don't, what are the odds that "the community" will just pick up such a huge project, figure out how it was coded, and just volunteer to keep it going? It's a good philosophy, but there have been many times where it just doesn't work because people just don't have the time to take up something so huge and volunteer all their time for it.

Compiz is one great example. Everyone ditched it, and now you have one guy maintaining it, and he still hasn't even completely figured out how the original devs implemented everything with their coding.
They probably won't, because it's a day job, not a passion. The community should be glad that somebody else released perpetually free software, at cost to themselves, as part of a speculative sell-the-support venture. In that case, we got something great that we didn't have before, just like when people with a passion open up an IDE and create solely out of love for software. If somebody wants, they can take it further, or it can serve as a great POC for other projects.

Necessity is the mother of all invention. With all that has been built by the free software movement, I don't see free database projects dying out or becoming constricted in capabilities. MySQL might progress, it might continue on under other branding, or another project might fill in. Whether we call it MySQL or something else really isn't a big deal.

I just don't see the need to begrudge any company for not giving away free, new code at its own expense. The foresight of the GPL prevents takebacks.

The real community ire should be directed against entities like Apple, Google, and the rest of the app store pushers, who seem content to swallow up free software, and redistribute it in a commercialized channel.

[Cuddles McKitten]

Woolly, tap-dancing llamas! This thread is still open even after the original article was shown factually wrong and a full weekend passed?! Could a mod close it please?

[Johnsie]

Oracle are one of the biggest financers of open source projects. The way they have been treated by some members of the Linux community is a disgrace.

[koenn]

Right, we're going in circles. No, they're not preying on the ignorant, because you're paying for support, not for the software. It's perfectly legal, ethical, and acceptable for an OEM to use the free of charge GPL version without support. The only thing they're paying for is support, which is not software.

So we're back to the fact that if you charge for FOSS software, you either have to prey on the ignorant or add content that isn't free.

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's of little consequence.
You can say the same about practically everything you buy.

If I buy fish from a fisherman, is he counting on my ignorance (that I don't know where to go to catch fish) or my incompetence (I don't know how to fish) ? And the price I pay, is that actually for the fish or for the time the fisherman spent catching it and the convenience of getting my food near to where I live ? Does it matter ?
I pay, I get fish - to me it could be as if I'm paying for fish that I could get for free, if I wanted.
The fisherman, otoh, agreed to sell me the fish for specific price, in which he no doubt calculated his time and effort (eg along the lines of 'I can catch on average XXX kg of fish in 1 day, so it'll have to sell for at least $x per kg to make it worth my while). So, from his point of view, I'm paying for his skill, time, and effort.

It's like that all along the supply chain.
If you buy coffee at the grocery near your house, most of what you pay is for 'services' and 'added value' : processing, packaging, transportation, quality control, the convenience of only having to walk to the grocery store to get it ... But when you go buy coffee, you don't make that distinction.

Well, FOSS is the same, it's raw material (source code) that gets compiled, packaged, made into a product, delivered to customers, ... The distinction between how much of what you pay is for the actual bits and how much is all the rest, is irrelevant.

[forrestcupp]

I can see the point you're trying to make, but it's of little consequence.
You can say the same about practically everything you buy.

But the difference is that getting your hands on FOSS for no charge is a lot easier than making your own DVD player, or even catching your own fish. Another difference is that in order to build my own DVD player or even to catch a fish, I'm most likely going to have to buy some supplies, so I'm paying money for some type of material anyway. The money from any physical goods that you buy goes partly toward production and packaging costs, but also partly toward material goods.

I'm definitely not saying that you can't make money off of FOSS. I'm just saying you can't make money off of the software itself without preying on ignorance or including some non-free content. This is not so with proprietary software.

But it doesn't matter, anyway. It's perfectly legal according to the GPL to prey on people's ignorance. :) Also, like you mention, there are plenty of other ways to make money off of FOSS.

One interesting note is that most of the money made from FOSS is from in-house programmers being paid by their company to develop software for the company's use.

[saulgoode]

One interesting note is that most of the money made from FOSS is from in-house programmers being paid by their company to develop software for the company's use.
The same could be said of non-FOSS software -- it has been estimated that over-the-counter software accounts for less than 20% of all developed code; the vast majority is developed either in-house or as work-for-hire.