Bruce claims that MySQL never too outside contributions and this was discussed in the EU.
This was not true.

There was some claims to the EU that MySQL AB did not take outside contributions but this was dismissed by me and others.

MySQL Ab did during it's whole lifetime taken outside contributions; There is a lot of bug fixes, ports, security enhancements and features developed by people outside of MySQL Ab. Most of the infrastructure (like connectors) where developed by outside contributors. It's true that when we did get more money, we did hire the best contributors, but that was not a strategy but something that is likely to happen with any successful project that gets money to hire developers.

During 2001 - 2006 we did not take as many contributions as we could have done because MySQL Ab did not have a community department or anyone responsible for handling patches (this was a management decision to save money, not something that was based on any legal advice).

A database is a complex project and it's true that we did not get as many contributions for the server as some other projects. This did however having nothing to do with any 'legal advice' or policy.

Apart from that I think Bruce's suggestion about a new policy is interesting and have some interesting benefits for developers.
One flaw with it is however that there is still a lot of possibility for misuse when used for a project that is just starting.

One should remember that for any big project it takes usually 5-10 years for the project to be a commercial success. If the company now only have to wait 3 more years to be able to close up the product and make it 'theirs', companies will be inclined to do that sooner or later if there is a lot of money to win.

A way to fix this would be to say that after 3 years all current code in the project will revert to BSD. This would ensure that the company can never close up the project from the developers (if they would try, they developers can just wait for the code to be BSD to continue as before). This clause should be required for any project that uses the AGPL license, as project using this license can't be freely used by the original contributors to the project.

Bruce, please get your fact rights before commenting! As a 'lawyer' you should know better...

What I have said in the EU case, is the GPL is not enough to ensure that competition in the market continues if the owner of the GPL copyright would benefit more by killing the product than keeping it alive.

This is something that even Richard Stallman agreed with in this EU case.

Regards,
Monty

As I never ever talked about the MySQL protocol with you, I don't have a clue what you are referring to.

From your comments, I can however agree with that you are not listening at all, but in spate of that think you have a right to criticize others for things they have not done.

Bruce, it's time to start listening instead of speaking!

Brian, as you should know I never said that GPL affects the protocol. (See my previous answer to Bruce)

What I have told you is that Richard Stallmans opinion is that if you have a client/server application (both GPL) and the protocol is proprietary (ie not public), then if someone creates a new client for the server this client will also be GPL.

However, this was never an argument that I have used with MySQL; My argument has always been that if someone has an application that require MySQL and this application is distributed directly or indirectly with MySQL, then the whole is a derivated work of MySQL and thus affected by the GPL.

As a separate comment, we never had any notable problems in MySQL with getting people to agree to sign a contributor agreement for donating code to us. Talking with other companies, as long as the contributor agreement is sensible (ie, you don't loose any rights yourself), then people don't have a problem signing it. As a reference, see how many people have donated code to FSF!

The reason MySQL stopped getting contributors was that when I stopped working with the contributors (because the internal developers took up all my time), MySQL AB never assigned anyone else to do this and when the potential contributors didn't get any feedback they stopped working on MySQL.

When it comes to Drizzle, you require the code to be under BSD; In practice this is a contributor agreement too.

Bruce, before claiming something, you should do some basic resources to ensure that you get your facts right.

- Brian Aker doesn't work for me. He is an old friend, nothing more.
- You know Bryan and should know, as all his friends does, that you can't influence what Bryan is saying; He is always speaking his own mind!
- I personally never got any 130M USD; Not even a fraction of this. (Can easily be verified as all tax information is public in Finland)
- I am not doing business with any rights that has been sold. My company, Monty Program Ab, is doing business on developing MariaDB, a branch of MySQL. We are fully entitled to do this under GPL.
- I have never said or claimed that the GPL affects you over the protocol. The GPL in MySQL does however affect your application if it is distributed with the MySQL server and/or require the MySQL server to work.
- The claim on the MySQL web site about the protocol is the brainchild of other people in the MySQL management (not the MySQL founders), people that you know very well.
- It's self evident that you can't go around the GPL license by creating a socket interface around a GPL program/library and use this instead of the original API. If this would be true, then it would be trivial for anyone to circumvent the GPL and it would loose all it's meaning.

Regards,
Monty

I am not out to buy MySQL, so I can't change the license. It's up to the new owner of MySQL to decide upon the license.

The petition is about giving control to the MySQL users of the MySQL destiny. I have nothing to gain financially if MySQL is sold to someone else. My gain would only be that MySQL would have a much better chance to be available and developed under Open Source also in the future.

If you read the petition and my blog, you should know that I am working on to find MySQL a good home and to ensure that MySQL is actively developed also in the future under Open Source. The idea is not to get the code back.
If you would have read the published comments on my blog, you would see that there is also negative onces. I do not publish things that contains bad language, things already commented upon or questions that are already answered in the blog or in the comments.
When it comes to MariaDB, I am committed to work on it and keep it Open Source.
The problem is that with a bad owner of the MySQL copyright, no fork can keep MySQL alive forever. You can read more about this in my blog.. It's now, before the Oracle / MySQL deal is approved, that MySQL users has a last chance to affect the future of MySQL by signing the petition.. If you do nothing now, you don't have anything to complain about if and when Oracle would stop developing MySQL as Open Source.

I have answered your questions in my blog post here
What we are now working on is just to ensure that MySQL gets a good home, which is of benefit for all MySQL users.

We have been working on a branch of MySQL, MariaDB, for 11 months already, so it's not like I am not doing anything.

However, the problem is that with a bad owner of the MySQL copyright, a fork that can't survive for long (because no one will be willing to pay for development of it). This is why we put up the petition; To give all MySQL users a chance to get heard and help affecting that MySQL will be available for all also in the future.

Note that GPL is based on distribution, not linking.

If you distribute your shared closed source library with the GPL code that uses the library, the whole is a derivated work of the GPL code and the shared library is thus affected by the GPL.

To make it clear, I don't want MySQL back.

I just want that MySQL should be owned by someone that have more reasons to keep it alive than to kill it.
(which is not me). This to ensure that the project is kept alive as an Open Source project also in the future.

I haven't asked Sun to give up anything

I have however pointed out the reasons why one can't assume that a fork will suddenly spring up and be able to resurrect MySQL if Oracle would decide to kill it (as others seam to think). The manual is one reason, the GPL license is another.

And MariaDB is not commercial; It's only available under Open Source.

What we are asking for in the petition is that MySQL users should be heard in the process.
By asking MySQL to be divested to another entity, there is no money for me to make (actually less, as you should know if you have read my blog)

Yes, you can use the old version of MySQL, but there is no guarantee that a fork will come up and be able to continue development if Oracle slowly starts to close up MySQL development.

The reason is that if MySQL is only available under GPL, there will be very few companies that can make direct revenue on MySQL and because of this, there is very little incentive to put money into MySQL development.

All GPL libraries have the same problem, which is the reason why there is so few GPL libraries that are actively developed.

Look at PostgreSQL for example; Many core developers works at a companies that is using PostgreSQL with proprietary code. If PostgreSQL was under GPL, they could not do that and would not have an incentive to do development on it.

When you take in investors, it's impossible to get such a clause. (Don't think that we didn't try).

So, in 2001, David and I had the choice to continue like before and grow slowly or take a risk and grow
rapidly.

Growing meant more resources for development and a better Open Source database overall. The price to pay was less control.