i’ll also be interested in how the Community version fares in terms of adoption and usage. i’m actually less than worried about the perceived “betaness” than i am about the community simply reacting to the split in the first place.

Code Guy: it’s very similar, no question.

dbt: the copyright assignment issue is common, no doubt.

Granted they don’t do it to dual-license the way MySQL does (unless you count the impending GPL3 as a dual license).

I have to disagree on one comment re: everything OSI approved is the “same open source” to simplify the message. There are degrees of “openness” and while I won’t argue X is more open than Y, you cannot ignore that there are different levels/degrees and they have impacts on adoption, corporate participateion, individual participation, ISV adoption, etc. It’s interesting to map these out in quadrants based on various factors.

I think this move by MySQL is interesting and agree it’s a sign of growing up. Red Hat grew up with paying customers - I think other open source projects would do well to identify what works in their model and replicate. What will be interesting is the Community version’s ability to grow outside innovations and ability to freely distribute a product for commercial purposes that is not perceived as “beta”.

the longer answer is that i think some complexity would be worth it, if the functionality is valued. in other words, if Community becomes the proving ground for just the features open source types are looking for - as opposed to Enterprise type functionality they’re not - it could be simpler than it would be otherwise, if not as simple as it could be.

make sense?

dave: Marten’s already responded below, but i wanted to commnet on two things:

1. copyright assignment is always a thorny issue in the world of open source as i’m sure you’re aware, and dual licensing is just one approach to that problem. it’s not the approach for everyone, but it’s one that works in many ways and has been embraced by any number of dual license advocates with some success.

further, even non dual-licensees have issues. Sun, for example, has been criticized for the JCA (joint copyright assignment) with respect to its open source projects, but the alternative is difficult. if they want to make any sort of licensing change later, they’d be required to recontact each and every contributor.

it’s just not practical.

2. not “real” open source: i’ve heard this contention levelled at so many different open source projects at this point that i’m nearly immune. i’ve had BSD license advocates tell me that Linux isn’t real open source because the GPL isn’t “free,” i’ve had OpenSolaris detractors tell me it’s not real open source because they chose neither the GPL nor the BSD but an MPL derivative, i’ve had anti-Mozilla folks tell me that Firefox isn’t open source because of the aggressive copyright stance that organization has taken. and i’ve certainly heard the same comments made to you about MySQL.

everyone’s entitled to their opinions, of course, but i don’t buy any of the above. MySQL is as much open source as Linux which as open source as Solaris and so on.

like many in the industry, i accept the OSI’s role as arbiter of whether or not a license qualifies as open source. MySQL is obviously released under such a license. it is, therefore, open source in my book.

different projects will pursue different models, each of which has different ramifications, but as long as the code is available under an open source license i’m fine with it.

Marten: appreciate you dropping by to clarify the question of contributions. there has obviously - the above being exhibit A - been the perception that MySQL is anti-contribution, and it will be fun to watch and see how the Community offering changes that equation. i know many Web 2.0 developers, for example, that would love to see lightning fast text search in the product - and maybe Community is a route to achieve that.

Firstly, we can definitely have contributions in MySQL that don’t make it into the OEM-licensed edition. The SSL library is an example.

Secondly, in case something is deemed important for our OEM business, we can either get ownership to the code or we can license it from the author, so there are is no absolute requirement of copyright assignment to us. And in the cases where significant copyright does change hands, we have paid money in return, which is something many contributors appreciate.

Thirdly, it should be noted that there are hundreds of contributions *around* the database server. The actual server is a pretty monolithic thing and it easily takes a year or two to get to know the code so that you can contribute something useful. So it doesn’t happen very often. But there is a vibrant ecosystem of contributions around the server (in the form of drivers, tools, utilities, wrappers, etc.)

In summary I don’t think the model is anti contributions. But I also understand that many are under the impression that it is. This is something we are now changing. We are making much more noise around the contributions we get, and we are making it easier to contribute (by making the product more modular, for instance, and by simplifying the paperwork). Comments and suggestions on how to best do this are welcome.

Marten

A few years back I asked a well-respected member of the open-source community why the community tolerated this approach. He said it was because the community was desperate for a company based on open-source to succeed, and so was willing to give them a pass.