The Register® — Biting the hand that feeds IT

Feeds

MySQL defends paid tarball decision

FOSS for all

Customer Success Testimonial: Recovery is Everything

MySQL has defended a decision to end free community access to the latest source code for its popular database in an attempt to snag paying customers.

Chief executive Marten Mickos said MySQL remains in full compliance with the principles of Free and Open Source Software (FOSS), adding the company's decision will help build a "well-funded business model" capable of producing yet more GPL software.

Mickos' comments accompanied those of vice president of community relations Kaj Arno who insisted it was business as usual for MySQL Community and Enterprise Servers, saying both will continue to benefit from the other and denying they will grow apart and split the user base.

"Our intention is for MySQL Community Server to be very good, and for MySQL Enterprise Server to provide further value on top of that," Arno blogged.

The executives spoke up after a decision that's left some in its usually supportive and loyal ecosystem voicing concerns MySQL is taking another step away from the community that helped it build market share (50 per cent among developers) and to become synonymous with Web 2.0 and the LAMP stack.

Some have even voiced concern the Community Server will be dropped by MySQL, as the company focuses on commercial activities.

The main issue stems from MySQL's decision to remove source code tarballs - bundles - from its public ftp.mysql.com site and place them on the enterprise.mysql.com site with tarballs made available only to paying subscribers. Non-tarballed code will continue to be available through the MySQL BitKeeper repository under the GPL.

The decision to keep code back - or at least well hidden - from the community has led some to question whether MySQL is, in fact, going closed source.

MySQL developer and community member Mike Kruckenberg blogged: "It doesn't seem to fit with the spirit of open source. When I think open source I think freely available source, not source I can get once I've paid for a license."

There is concern that restricted access to source will harm the quality of the final product while leaving the community straddled with a second-class database that slips out of touch with MySQL's development cycles.

It's believed keeping code back will deter the kind of grand-scale testing by the community that's helped maintain quality by finding bugs missed by the company, as source in the BitKeeper library is "not relevant" for rigorous testing.

Jeremy Cole, formerly with MySQL and now running Proven Scaling, warned these latest changes would do "absolutely nothing" to address quality control issues on bugs and delays that crept in with the release in late 2006 of Community Server. As part of the new regime, MySQL has promised at least four mature, scheduled source code builds each year.

Cole claimed there are infrequent releases of Community Server with "very little vetting, and there's not a real feedback loop with the users, due to the delay in seeing actual fixes implemented."

One community member has pledged to pick up the slack by providing on-going access to MySQL code. Organizers of the Dorsal Source initiative - which provides builds of MySQL for Linux and Windows - have promised to deliver those source releases being taken from the public site along with binary builds and historical releases. Dorsal Source is backed by Cole's Proven Scaling.

The decision to keep source back for paying customers seems part of a program by MySQL to convince customers there's more value in paying for subscriptions, as they actually get something that's not available to users of the free Community Server.

Mickos has made it increasingly clear MySQL has faced problems in converting free users into paying consumers. That's a problem for a company that - with an IPO in the wings - will be under pressure to assure investors it's got plenty of growth ahead as a public company. MySQL has clearly embarked on what it believes to be a strategy analogous with Red Hat's Fedora.

Responding to one blogger, Mickos agreed with the Fedora analogy and drew on MySQL Cluster as a good example of a taking a closed-source product from a well-funded organization (Ericsson) and building a thriving business by releasing it under GPL. "That's in my mind the win-win for FOSS," Mickos said.

While few doubt MySQL's need to make cash, skeptics are questioning the wisdom of following the Red Hat model and apparently putting a wall between itself and the community to "get more customers"

Agentless Backup is Not a Myth

Latest Comments
Anonymous Coward

Not a great track record on support

Recently a serious MySQL bug meant that you couldn't compile PHP with both MySQL and SSL (even indirectly via CURL), that is to say, two of the more fundamental things required by web developers. This bug went well documented and unfixed (due to innumerable screw-ups) for 10 consecutive point releases. It required deletion of 2 (unused) lines of source code. The bug affected not only the community edition, but enterprise too. Sad but true.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

No one listens

to me, I say it at least once a week or so but open source is taking advantage of the developer "community". This is just the first step towards closing off all the source and they are going to get away with a fully developed product while saving millions in R&D dollars.

HAHAHA. People think they can really get a superior something for free. HAHAHA.

0
0

open source != free

Regardless as to whether I agree or disagree with their decision, one crucial point that's missed by most of the "open source" community is just because something is "open" it does not mean it's "free".

That most open source code happens to be free is another matter. That the software itself (or licence to use it) is free or not is also another matter.

On another point...

"... is that paying customers don't understand what they're paying for if the software is "Free" already. I mean, how can support for free software possibly cost more than the software itself?"

Support is a more lucrative business in many markets than the software itself. There's nothing wrong with a business model that says you can give the software away "free" or cheap but charge more for support. In fact that's attractive to many who are prepared to work things out themselves and rely on community support rather than pay for official support, whereas an Enterprise business may want immediate support with legal implications by paying for it.

0
0

More from The Register

SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix
Zombie lawsuit back and wants to suck the brains out of Linux
Bjarne Again: Hallelujah for C++
Plus: Now officially OK to admit you never used STL algorithms
Interwebs taunt Sir Jony over Apple eye candy makeover
Hey Ive, Ive... add more unicorns, willya?
Apple: iOS7 dayglo Barbie makeover is UNFINISHED - report
Plus: You don't like the icons? Blame marketing
Red Hat to ditch MySQL for MariaDB in RHEL 7
So long, Oracle! Don't let the door hit you on the way out
Shy? Socially inadequate? Fiddling with your phone could help
App 'tells the brutal truth' about social inadequates' chatup lines
Java EE 7 melds HTML5 with enterprise apps
New release arrives with GlassFish, NetBeans support
 breaking news
'Office Facebook' firm Tibbr wants you to PAY for mobe-meetings app
Great idea. Punters won't cough for it though
 breaking news
The only Waze is Google: Ad giant tipped to gobble map app 'for $1.3bn'
Pac-Man-satnav-ish upstart in bidding war with Apple, Facebook
 breaking news
PM Cameron calls for modern, programmable computers! (We think)
IT education musings to G8 chiefs to mystify IT industry