MySQL Gemini code
As some of you know, Nusphere is trying to sell MySQL with an additional
transaction-based table manager called Gemini. They enabled download of
the source code yesterday at:
http://mysql.org/download3.php?file_id=1118
Looking through the 122k lines of C code in the Gemini directory, it is
pretty clear from a 'grep -i progress' that the Gemini code is actually
the database storage code for the Progress database. Progress is the
parent company of Nusphere.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
Bruce Momjian wrote:
As some of you know, Nusphere is trying to sell MySQL with an additional
transaction-based table manager called Gemini. They enabled download of
the source code yesterday at:http://mysql.org/download3.php?file_id=1118
Looking through the 122k lines of C code in the Gemini directory, it is
pretty clear from a 'grep -i progress' that the Gemini code is actually
the database storage code for the Progress database. Progress is the
parent company of Nusphere.
And this press release
http://www.nusphere.com/releases/071601.htm
also explains why they had to do it this way. They disagreed
with the policy that every code added to the core system must
be owned by MySQL AB, so that these guys can sell it for
money in their commercial licenses.
IMHO, the MySQL community gives a few people far too much
credit anyway. The MySQL AB folks degrade contributions from
their community to "personal donations" to "Monty", which he
has to "scrutinize" and often rewrite so that they can stand
their (MySQL AB's) standards. Give me a break, but does the
entire MySQL community only consist of 16 year old junior
pacman players, or are there some "real programmers (tm)"
too?
But maybe Mr. Mickos told the truth, that there never have
been substantial contributions from the outside and nearly
all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little
"donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's launch of
mysql.org was long overdue.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
And this press release
http://www.nusphere.com/releases/071601.htm
also explains why they had to do it this way. They disagreed
with the policy that every code added to the core system must
be owned by MySQL AB, so that these guys can sell it for
money in their commercial licenses.
This is interesting. They mention PostgreSQL twice as an example to
emulate for MySQL. They feel the pressure of companies involved with
PostgreSQL and see the benefit of a community around the database.
On a more significant note, I hear the word "fork" clearly suggested in
that text. It is almost like MySQL AB GPL'ed the MySQL code and now
they may not be able to keep control of it.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026And the story goes on...
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 11:45:54AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
And this press release
...
On a more significant note, I hear the word "fork" clearly suggested
in that text. It is almost like MySQL AB GPL'ed the MySQL code and
now they may not be able to keep control of it.
Anybody is free to fork MySQL or PostgreSQL alike. The only difference
is that all published MySQL forks must remain public, where PostgreSQL
forks need not. MySQL AB is demonstrating their legal right to keep as
much control as they chose, and NuSphere will lose if it goes to court.
The interesting event here is that since NuSphere violated the license
terms, they no longer have any rights to use or distribute the MySQL AB
code, and won't until they get forgiveness from MySQL AB. MySQL AB
would be within their rights to demand that the copyright to Gemini be
signed over, before offering forgiveness.
If Red Hat forks PostgreSQL, nobody will have any grounds for complaint.
(It's been forked lots of times already, less visibly.)
Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 08:35:58AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
And this press release
http://www.nusphere.com/releases/071601.htm
also explains why they had to do it this way.
They were always free to fork, but doing it the way they did --
violating MySQL AB's license -- they shot the dog.
The lesson? Ask somebody competent, first, before you bet your
company playing license games.
Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com
Hi!
As I do have some insight in these matters, I thought I would comment
on this thing
"Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@Yahoo.com> writes:
Jan> Bruce Momjian wrote:
As some of you know, Nusphere is trying to sell MySQL with an additional
transaction-based table manager called Gemini. They enabled download of
the source code yesterday at:http://mysql.org/download3.php?file_id=1118
Looking through the 122k lines of C code in the Gemini directory, it is
pretty clear from a 'grep -i progress' that the Gemini code is actually
the database storage code for the Progress database. Progress is the
parent company of Nusphere.
Jan> And this press release
Jan> http://www.nusphere.com/releases/071601.htm
Jan> also explains why they had to do it this way. They disagreed
Jan> with the policy that every code added to the core system must
Jan> be owned by MySQL AB, so that these guys can sell it for
Jan> money in their commercial licenses.
Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright
of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is
actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For
example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications) does
the same thing. Assigning over the code is also something that FSF
requires for all code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB,
you should also criticize the above.
We did never have any problems to include any of GEMINI code into
MySQL. We had tried to get them to submit Gemini into MySQL since
March, but they didn't want to do that. It was not until we sued
NuSphere for, among other things, breaking the GPL that they did
finally release Gemini under GPL.
We wouldn't mind if they did this 'community thing' with a site named
something like NUSPHERE.ORG, but by doing this with MYSQL.ORG and
violating our trademark is not something that we can just look upon
without reacting. That NuSphere also have had very little regard for
the GPL copyright, keeps copyrighted material on their web site and
uses mysql.org to push out their own commercial (not free) MySQL
distribution tells a lot of their intentions.
I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL
regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least
understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for
PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for
the main developers to PostgreSQL. Anyway, I think that we open source
developers should stick together. We may have our own disagreements,
but at least we are working for the same common goal (open source
domination).
If you ever need any support from us regarding the RedHat database,,
please contact me personally about this. I really liked all the
PostgreSQL developers I met last year at OSDN; I found it great to be
able to exchange ideas, suggest features and talk openly about our
products without any restrictions. I hope to be able to do it again
this year!
Those that has seen my postings knows that I don't publicly criticize
PostgreSQL; I do also recommend PostgreSQL for projects where I think
it's better suitable than MySQL. I have at many times defended
PostgreSQL when I heard people criticize it without a good reason. I
am not afraid of pointing out weaknesses in a product if I am sure
that I have discovered one, but I try to do that in a professional
manner. I don't think you will find that NuSphere is going to be as
fair if they get more control over MySQL through mysql.org.
Jan> IMHO, the MySQL community gives a few people far too much
Jan> credit anyway. The MySQL AB folks degrade contributions from
Jan> their community to "personal donations" to "Monty", which he
Jan> has to "scrutinize" and often rewrite so that they can stand
Jan> their (MySQL AB's) standards. Give me a break, but does the
Jan> entire MySQL community only consist of 16 year old junior
Jan> pacman players, or are there some "real programmers (tm)"
Jan> too?
I only rewrite things that are going to be in the MySQL server, not in
the clients. As MySQL needs to work in 24/7 systems, we have to be
very carefully of what we put into the server. With a background of
20 years of programming, it's also not that hard to rewrite code to
make it better so why not do it? Because I know the whole MySQL core
code intimately, its much easier for me to remove duplicated functions,
optimize things and generalize code to make things works better than
the original author had thought of.
I am sure that it's the same thing with those of you that has worked a
lot of time on the PostgreSQL code...
You must also understand that we have a totally different development
structure here at MySQL AB than you have. We are 30 people of which 14
are full time developers. 99.99 % of the code in the core MySQL server
is written by us or by people that we have paid for the code. We get
very few code contributions on the server code from other people (we
do get LOTS of contributions on the client code).
We get the money to develop MySQL from support, licensing and the use
of our trademark. I don't think you should have any problem with this?
With mysql.org NuSphere is trying to take away 2 of the above things
from us and that's why we have to defend ourselves.
Jan> But maybe Mr. Mickos told the truth, that there never have
Jan> been substantial contributions from the outside and nearly
Jan> all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little
Jan> "donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's launch of
Jan> mysql.org was long overdue.
Why do you think that?
MySQL AB is a totally open source company. Everything we develop and
sell we also put on open source. I think we have are doing and have
always done the right thing for the open source community.
I don't think it's really fair to be compare us to NuSphere :(
Regards,
Monty
Michael Widenius <monty@mysql.com> writes:
Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright
of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is
actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For
example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications)
Ximian isn't doing a lot of gnome applications, just a few
("Evolution" springs to mind, and their installer). Signing over
copyright to Ximian wouldn't make much sense - GNOME isn't a Ximian
project, so they can't dual license it anyway.
Assigning over the code is also something that FSF requires for all
code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB, you should
also criticize the above.
This is slightly different - FSF wants it so it will have a legal
position to defend its programs:
************************************************************************
http://www.fsf.org/prep/maintain_6.html
If you maintain an FSF-copyrighted package, then you should follow
certain legal procedures when incorporating changes written by other
people. This ensures that the FSF has the legal right to distribute
the package, and the right to defend its free status in court if
necessary.
Before incorporating significant changes, make sure that the person
who wrote the changes has signed copyright papers and that the Free
Software Foundation has received and signed them. We may also need a
disclaimer from the person's employer.
************************************************************************
MySQL and TrollTech requires copyright assignment in order to sell
non-open licenses. Some people will have a problem with this, while
not having a problem with the FSF copyright assignment.
I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL
regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least
understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for
PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for
the main developers to PostgreSQL.
This isn't even a remotely similar situation:
* For MySQL, the scenario is that a company made available an open
version of its product while continuing to sell it under other
licenses.
* For PostgreSQL, it has been a long living project which spawned
companies which then hired some of the core developers.
We're not reselling someone elses product with minor enhancements
(companies have been known to be doing that to products we create),
we're selling support and working on additions to an open project.
That may make it harder for the companies now employing the core
developers (or may help, as PostgreSQL gets more much deserved
publicity and technical credit), but doesn't violate the project's
licenses and a company's trademark the way NuSphere did with MySQL.
Anyway, I think that we open source developers should stick
together. We may have our own disagreements, but at least we are
working for the same common goal (open source domination).If you ever need any support from us regarding the RedHat database,,
please contact me personally about this.
Red Hat is firmly committed to open source, and is definitely a big
open source developer.
--
Trond Eivind Glomsr�d
Red Hat, Inc.
This is slightly different - FSF wants it so it will have a legal
position to defend its programs:
There is at least one documented case where the FSF has used
that right to sell a non-open license for GCC to Motorola.
- Sascha Experience IRCG
http://schumann.cx/ http://schumann.cx/ircg
On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 06:37:48PM -0400, Trond Eivind Glomsr?d wrote:
Michael Widenius <monty@mysql.com> writes:
Assigning over the code is also something that FSF requires for all
code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB, you should
also criticize the above.This is slightly different - FSF wants it so it will have a legal
position to defend its programs: ...
MySQL and TrollTech requires copyright assignment in order to sell
non-open licenses. Some people will have a problem with this, while
not having a problem with the FSF copyright assignment.
Nobody who works on MySQL is unaware of MySQL AB's business model.
Anybody who contributes to the core server has to expect that MySQL
AB will need to relicense anything accepted into the core; that's
their right as originators. Everybody who contributes has a choice
to make: fork, or sign over. (With the GPL, forking remains possible;
Apple and Sun "community" licenses don't allow it.)
Anybody who contributes to PG has to make the same choice: fork,
or put your code under the PG license. The latter choice is
equivalent to "signing over" to all proprietary vendors, who are
then free to take your code proprietary. Some of us like that.
I had actually hoped to get support from you guys at PostgreSQL
regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least
understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing
for PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat
or for the main developers to PostgreSQL.This isn't even a remotely similar situation: ...
It's similar enough. One difference is that PG users are less
afraid to fork. Another is that without the GPL, we have elected
not to (and indeed cannot) stop any company from doing with PG what
NuSphere is doing with MySQL.
This is why characterizing the various licenses as more or less
"business-friendly" is misleading (i.e. dishonest) -- it evades the
question, "friendly to whom?". Businesses sometimes compete...
Nathan Myers
ncm@zembu.com
Michael Widenius wrote:
Hi!
Moin Monty,
dear fence-guests,
Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright
of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is
actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For
example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications) does
the same thing. Assigning over the code is also something that FSF
requires for all code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB,
you should also criticize the above.
I should not criticize the others and Trond already explained
why (thank you).
All I was doing was summing up some of the latest press
releases from NuSphere and MySQL AB. You as CTO and your own
CEO have explained detailed enough why the assignment of
copyright for all core system related code is so important
for your company because of your business modell. As the
original banker I am, and as the 13+ year IT consultant I am,
I don't have the slightest problem with that and understand
it completely. It's not my business at all anyway, so it
doesn't matter if I personally think it's good or not.
But NuSphere said, that the problem with contributing the
Gemini code was because of the copyright questions. Looking
at the code now and realizing that it's part of the Progress
storage system fits perfectly. NuSphere might have had
permission from Progress to release it under the GPL, but not
to assign the copyright to MySQL AB. The copyright of parts
of the Gemini code is still property of Progress (Britt
please come down from the fence and correct me if I'm wrong
here).
I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL
regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least
understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for
PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for
the main developers to PostgreSQL. Anyway, I think that we open source
developers should stick together. We may have our own disagreements,
but at least we are working for the same common goal (open source
domination).
The RedHAT database IS PostgreSQL. And I don't see it
becoming something different. All I've seen up to now is that
RedHAT will be a contributing member of the PostgreSQL open
source community in the same way, PostgreSQL Inc. and Great
Bridge LLC are. That they use BIG RED letters while GB uses
BIG BLUE ones and PgSQL Inc. a bavarian mix for the
marketing, yeah - that's marketing - these folks like logos
and colors. The real difference will mature somehow in the
service portfolios over time. And since there are many
different customers with a broad variety of demands, we'll
all find more food than we can eat. No need to fight against
each other.
The major advantage in the PostgreSQL case is, that we don't
need no dispute about licensing, because whoever thinks he
can make a deal out of keeping something proprietary is
allowed to. People contributing under the BSD license are
just self-confident enough to know that this will become a
niche solution or die anyway.
And there we are at the point about "support regarding THIS".
If you're asking for support for the MySQL project, well, I
created two procedural languages in PostgreSQL so far and
know enough about the query rewriting techniques used by
Stonebraker and his team to implement views in PostgreSQL.
As the open source developer I am, I might possibly find one
or the other spare hour to create something similar. The
reason I did it for PostgreSQL was because a couple of years
ago Bruce Momjian asked me to fix the rule system. Noone ever
asked me to do anything for MySQL. But if you're asking for
direct support for your company, sorry, but I'm a Great
Bridge employee and that's clearly against my interests.
Jan> But maybe Mr. Mickos told the truth, that there never have
Jan> been substantial contributions from the outside and nearly
Jan> all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little
Jan> "donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's launch of
Jan> mysql.org was long overdue.Why do you think that?
MySQL AB is a totally open source company. Everything we develop and
sell we also put on open source. I think we have are doing and have
always done the right thing for the open source community.
That is what your CEO said on NewsForge, SlashDot and
whereever. I am committed to free source. Thus I think that
the best thing for open source is a free community, which and
who's product is not controlled by any commercial entity.
I don't think it's really fair to be compare us to NuSphere :(
Did I? That wasn't my intention. And nothing I wrote was
meant personally. Even if the PostgreSQL and MySQL projects
had some differences in the past, there has never been
something between Monty and Jan (not to my knowledge).
Let's meet next week at O'Reilly (you're there, aren't you)
and have a beer.
Jan
--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
Hi!
"Nathan" == Nathan Myers <ncm@zembu.com> writes:
Nathan> On Wed, Jul 18, 2001 at 08:35:58AM -0400, Jan Wieck wrote:
And this press release
http://www.nusphere.com/releases/071601.htm
also explains why they had to do it this way.
Nathan> They were always free to fork, but doing it the way they did --
Nathan> violating MySQL AB's license -- they shot the dog.
Yes, we wouldn't have minded a fork as long as they would have done it
under their own name. Now they are causing a lot of confusion and
giving both MySQL and open source a bad name :(
Of course, PostgreSQL will benefit from this, but I would rather have
seen that we would compete with technology instead of with bad PR :(
Nathan> The lesson? Ask somebody competent, first, before you bet your
Nathan> company playing license games.
The problem is that this doesn't always help. For example if the other
part is not playing by the rules, but counts on the fact that because
he has more money he will win by the end even if he breaks all the
rules going there.
Regards,
Monty
Hi!
"Jan" == Jan Wieck <JanWieck@yahoo.com> writes:
Jan> Moin Monty,
Jan> dear fence-guests,
Thanks.
Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign over copyright
of Gemini to us. We do it only for the core server, and this is
actually not an uncommon thing among open source companies. For
example QT (Trolltech) and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications) does
the same thing. Assigning over the code is also something that FSF
requires for all code contributions. If you criticize us at MySQL AB,
you should also criticize the above.
Jan> I should not criticize the others and Trond already explained
Jan> why (thank you).
Jan> All I was doing was summing up some of the latest press
Jan> releases from NuSphere and MySQL AB. You as CTO and your own
Jan> CEO have explained detailed enough why the assignment of
Jan> copyright for all core system related code is so important
Jan> for your company because of your business modell. As the
Jan> original banker I am, and as the 13+ year IT consultant I am,
Jan> I don't have the slightest problem with that and understand
Jan> it completely. It's not my business at all anyway, so it
Jan> doesn't matter if I personally think it's good or not.
Jan> But NuSphere said, that the problem with contributing the
Jan> Gemini code was because of the copyright questions. Looking
Jan> at the code now and realizing that it's part of the Progress
Jan> storage system fits perfectly. NuSphere might have had
Jan> permission from Progress to release it under the GPL, but not
Jan> to assign the copyright to MySQL AB. The copyright of parts
Jan> of the Gemini code is still property of Progress (Britt
Jan> please come down from the fence and correct me if I'm wrong
Jan> here).
We have never asked for the copyright to Gemini; We don't need the
copyright to do an embedded version of MySQL, as MySQL works perfectly
without Gemini; We have an agreement with Innobase Oy and an
understanding with Sleepycat so we can provide ACID transactions even
without Gemini, if any of our commercial customers would require this.
(Sorry for the 'business talk', but I just wanted to fill in the
background)
In my opinion the whole thing with the copyright is a public stunt of
NuSphere to explain why they are now doing a fork. I don't have any
problems with a fork as long as they don't call it MySQL and don't do
it on a site called mysql.org.
I had actually hoped to get support from you guy's at PostgreSQL
regarding this. You may have similar experience or at least
understand our position. The RedHat database may be a good thing for
PostgreSQL, but I am not sure if it's a good thing for RedHat or for
the main developers to PostgreSQL. Anyway, I think that we open source
developers should stick together. We may have our own disagreements,
but at least we are working for the same common goal (open source
domination).
Jan> The RedHAT database IS PostgreSQL. And I don't see it
Jan> becoming something different. All I've seen up to now is that
Jan> RedHAT will be a contributing member of the PostgreSQL open
Jan> source community in the same way, PostgreSQL Inc. and Great
Jan> Bridge LLC are. That they use BIG RED letters while GB uses
Jan> BIG BLUE ones and PgSQL Inc. a bavarian mix for the
Jan> marketing, yeah - that's marketing - these folks like logos
Jan> and colors. The real difference will mature somehow in the
Jan> service portfolios over time. And since there are many
Jan> different customers with a broad variety of demands, we'll
Jan> all find more food than we can eat. No need to fight against
Jan> each other.
Sound's good. I really hope it will be that way in the long run!
On the other hand, in the beginning our deal with NuSphere also
appeared to be good:(
Jan> The major advantage in the PostgreSQL case is, that we don't
Jan> need no dispute about licensing, because whoever thinks he
Jan> can make a deal out of keeping something proprietary is
Jan> allowed to. People contributing under the BSD license are
Jan> just self-confident enough to know that this will become a
Jan> niche solution or die anyway.
Yes, in your case the BSD license is a good license. For us at MySQL
AB, that have paid staff doing all most all development work on the
server, the GPL license is a better license as this allows to put all
software we develop under open source and still make a living. (I am
not trying to start a flame war here; I am just saying that both
licenses have their use and both benefit open source, but in different
ways)
Jan> And there we are at the point about "support regarding THIS".
Jan> If you're asking for support for the MySQL project, well, I
Jan> created two procedural languages in PostgreSQL so far and
Jan> know enough about the query rewriting techniques used by
Jan> Stonebraker and his team to implement views in PostgreSQL.
Jan> As the open source developer I am, I might possibly find one
Jan> or the other spare hour to create something similar. The
Jan> reason I did it for PostgreSQL was because a couple of years
Jan> ago Bruce Momjian asked me to fix the rule system. Noone ever
Jan> asked me to do anything for MySQL. But if you're asking for
Jan> direct support for your company, sorry, but I'm a Great
Jan> Bridge employee and that's clearly against my interests.
The only thing I ask for support is against mysql.org, as this clearly
violates our trademark, and public support against any company that
breaks copyrights or open source licenses. I don't think that this
would be a problem for anyone that believes in open source,
independent of who they work for.
Jan> But maybe Mr. Mickos told the truth, that there never have
Jan> been substantial contributions from the outside and nearly
Jan> all the code has been written by "Monty" himself (with little
Jan> "donations" from David). In that case, NuSphere's launch of
Jan> mysql.org was long overdue.
Why do you think that?
MySQL AB is a totally open source company. Everything we develop and
sell we also put on open source. I think we have are doing and have
always done the right thing for the open source community.
Jan> That is what your CEO said on NewsForge, SlashDot and
Jan> whereever. I am committed to free source. Thus I think that
Jan> the best thing for open source is a free community, which and
Jan> who's product is not controlled by any commercial entity.
I am also committed to open source even if my standpoint is a little
different from yours. Anyone can do a fork of MySQL, if they don't
think that we are doing the right thing. I don't have a problem with
that (I wouldn't like it, but it's a rule of the game). I am however
against people that are using others trademark or copyrighted stuff
without permission.
I don't think it's really fair to be compare us to NuSphere :(
Jan> Did I? That wasn't my intention. And nothing I wrote was
Jan> meant personally. Even if the PostgreSQL and MySQL projects
Jan> had some differences in the past, there has never been
Jan> something between Monty and Jan (not to my knowledge).
That's right. Sorry for being a little 'on the edge', but this NuSphere
business is taking it's tool.
Jan> Let's meet next week at O'Reilly (you're there, aren't you)
Jan> and have a beer.
I will not be there, but you will find my partner David there. I am
sure he also would like to meet and chat with you for a while.
I will try to keep down my postings on this list now (if not something
REALLY interesting comes up). I just wanted you to give you a quick
look from the other side of the fence.
Regards,
Monty
"Michael" == Michael Widenius <monty@mysql.com> writes:
Michael> Please note that we NEVER have asked NuSphere to sign
Michael> over copyright of Gemini to us. We do it only for the
Michael> core server, and this is actually not an uncommon thing
Michael> among open source companies. For example QT (Trolltech)
Michael> and Ximian (a lot of gnome applications) does the same
Michael> thing. Assigning over the code is also something that
Michael> FSF requires for all code contributions. If you
Michael> criticize us at MySQL AB, you should also criticize the
Michael> above.
And Redhat (who are obviously pro Open Source) does this with Cygwin,
Sincerely,
Adrian Phillips
--
Your mouse has moved.
Windows NT must be restarted for the change to take effect.
Reboot now? [OK]