I want to use postresql for this app, but...

On 05/02/2004 19:33 Derek Shaw wrote:

I am working with a window-manufacturing firm (the real thing!). One of
the reasons we are about to choose one of the vertical-market
applications is that they claim ODBC compliance, and "Using other ODBC
compliant database engines should not present a problem but may require
some additional testing..." This is in stark contrast to all the other
vendors who require MSSQL on the back end (or an AS400), and the usual
windoziness about why you'd want to do anything else.

When I asked about using PostgreSQL this is the reply I received:
----
I discussed PostureSQL with Paul and his technical director sent me the
following comment:
/ PostgreSQL// is open source and so far they have not agreed on a blob
field properly we use blob fields for the item bitmap, old conservatory
data and meta files for graphics. An ODBC driver is available and
describes how to fudge a blob field but it says that it does not clean
them up properly when updating. I suggest moving to MySQL which
is also open source ??///
They estimate about one day additional time to make necessary changes
and to test for MySQL. Let me know what you think.
----
These folks develop using MSAccess and MSSQL. Can anyone shed any light
on how serious this problem is, and whether it is ever likely to be
resolved so that I could use PostgreSQL?

I wonder if they've got confused about the 2 ways in PostgreSQL can store
blobs. There is the older Large Object method and there is the newer bytea
data type. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/44.php could help them
understand which to use. Or they could ask on this list.

Perhaps you should also ask them them to comment on
http://sql-info.de/mysql. Do they believe a database which can silently
corrupt your data is a product worth recommending to a paying client?

-- 
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller 
Business |
| Computer Consultants         | 
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

Paul Thomas wrote:

On 05/02/2004 19:33 Derek Shaw wrote:

I am working with a window-manufacturing firm (the real thing!). One of
the reasons we are about to choose one of the vertical-market
applications is that they claim ODBC compliance, and "Using other ODBC
compliant database engines should not present a problem but may require
some additional testing..." This is in stark contrast to all the other
vendors who require MSSQL on the back end (or an AS400), and the usual
windoziness about why you'd want to do anything else.

When I asked about using PostgreSQL this is the reply I received:
----
I discussed PostureSQL with Paul and his technical director sent me the
following comment:
/ PostgreSQL// is open source and so far they have not agreed on a blob
field properly we use blob fields for the item bitmap, old conservatory
data and meta files for graphics. An ODBC driver is available and
describes how to fudge a blob field but it says that it does not clean
them up properly when updating. I suggest moving to MySQL which
is also open source ??///
They estimate about one day additional time to make necessary changes
and to test for MySQL. Let me know what you think.
----
These folks develop using MSAccess and MSSQL. Can anyone shed any light
on how serious this problem is, and whether it is ever likely to be
resolved so that I could use PostgreSQL?

I wonder if they've got confused about the 2 ways in PostgreSQL can store
blobs. There is the older Large Object method and there is the newer bytea
data type. Each has its advantages and disadvantages.
http://www.varlena.com/varlena/GeneralBits/44.php could help them
understand which to use. Or they could ask on this list.

Perhaps you should also ask them them to comment on
http://sql-info.de/mysql. Do they believe a database which can silently
corrupt your data is a product worth recommending to a paying client?

In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there are
significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open". MySQL is not
free, so if the application developed is closed source, it requires the
end user to purchase a commercial MySQL license per installation.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

On 09/02/2004 15:25 Jan Wieck wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:
[snip]
In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there are
significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open". MySQL is not
free, so if the application developed is closed source, it requires the
end user to purchase a commercial MySQL license per installation.

Another good point in our favour IMHO.

-- 
Paul Thomas
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+
| Thomas Micro Systems Limited | Software Solutions for the Smaller 
Business |
| Computer Consultants         | 
http://www.thomas-micro-systems-ltd.co.uk   |
+------------------------------+---------------------------------------------+

Paul Thomas wrote:

On 09/02/2004 15:25 Jan Wieck wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:
[snip]
In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there are
significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open". MySQL is
not free, so if the application developed is closed source, it
requires the end user to purchase a commercial MySQL license per
installation.

Another good point in our favour IMHO.

This is *WRONG*.

MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.

Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

--
Claudio Cicali
c.cicali@mclink.it
http://www.flexer.it
GPG Key Fingerprint = 2E12 64D5 E5F5 2883 0472 4CFF 3682 E786 555D 25CE

This is *WRONG*.
MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.
Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

Are you serious?

By free, we also mean that a product is developed by a community of people,
not a company raising funds. MySQL AB is mainly backed-up by investors. When
all this money is burnt-away, this will be the end of it.

Free software is a cultural and shared development organisation, tightly
linked to the motivation of a individuals.

In a way, MySQL is NOT ***free***. It will be free the day when you see normal
people taking decisions and committing new features to CVS. There is no
freedom without equal access to information and decision makers.

Visit: http://www.mysql.com/company/index.html
"MySQL staff develop new releases every..."

Equal access will (probably) never happen, because MySQL AB would not be able
to release "double-licences" without the agreement of all authors.

Do not hesitate to contact us back if normal people from the normal world ever
commit code in MySQL CVS. This would be a clear sign that MySQL AB is on the
good trend and will probably go faster than a 3 year release cycle.

By choosing PostgreSQL, people are investing in a community work that will
never dissapear and will probably superseed all existing databases within 10
years.

This is as simple as life. Unless PostgreSQL hackers and manpower is wiped-out
by a nuclear winter or any natural catastrophy, there is no possibility to
stop PostgreSQL rise (joke, I am not really serious here).

Best regards,
Jean-Michel

Jean-Michel POURE wrote:

This is *WRONG*.
MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.
Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

Are you serious?

Yes, I am.

By free, we also mean that a product is developed by a community of people,
not a company raising funds. MySQL AB is mainly backed-up by investors. When
all this money is burnt-away, this will be the end of it.

You can't say what YOU mean with "free". In this context "free" is what is
licensed under GPL or GPL-compatible licenses.

MySQL, as a *product*, it's not free as you argue. Ok. But MySQL as simple
"software", is free. You can get the whole source and begin "forking" as you
like. This is enough for me, and for anyone pondering "licensing" problems
while choosing a dbms for her company.

Free software is a cultural and shared development organisation, tightly
linked to the motivation of a individuals.

I could not agree more.

In a way, MySQL is NOT ***free***. It will be free the day when you see normal
people taking decisions and committing new features to CVS. There is no
freedom without equal access to information and decision makers.

Yes, in A WAY. Not the way that (imho) we were discussing here.

Visit: http://www.mysql.com/company/index.html
"MySQL staff develop new releases every..."

Equal access will (probably) never happen, because MySQL AB would not be able
to release "double-licences" without the agreement of all authors.

Wonder what is missing to Postgresql ? (hint: strong commercial support. No flame, please ! :))

Best regards,
Jean-Michel

Nice post, nice thread.

--
Claudio Cicali
c.cicali@mclink.it
http://www.flexer.it
GPG Key Fingerprint = 2E12 64D5 E5F5 2883 0472 4CFF 3682 E786 555D 25CE

Le Mardi 10 Février 2004 10:59, Claudio Cicali a écrit :

Wonder what is missing to Postgresql ?

Thanks for your answer. In fact, PostgreSQL is not missing much, even in
commercial support.

Now, as a joke and invitation, at pgAdmin:
- we are missing 48 Italian strings in
http://www.pgadmin.org/pgadmin3/translation.php.
- a translation of pgAdmin website in Italian would be nice too.

Then, if you have time, visit pgAdmin advocay page:
http://www.pgadmin.org/pgadmin3/advocacy.php

Using the PAD file, you will be able to register pgAdmin III on Italian
downloading web sites. MySQL does it all the time for several softwares,
including "MySQL control center".

:)

Any help is welcome.

Cheers,
Jean-Michel

Claudio Cicali wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:

On 09/02/2004 15:25 Jan Wieck wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:
[snip]
In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there are
significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open". MySQL is
not free, so if the application developed is closed source, it
requires the end user to purchase a commercial MySQL license per
installation.

Another good point in our favour IMHO.

This is *WRONG*.

MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.

Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

Did you even bother to look at that page yourself? It clearly says
exactly what I said up there. If your code is available free of change
as open source, then and only then, you and the users of your code are
free from license fees. In any other case you have to buy or keep your
stuff for yourself. Special restrictions apply to any changes you might
want to make to it, and so on and so forth.

Free to me means a little more than "currently free of charge under
certain restrictions that are subject to change under our discretion".
And the latter is how I read the MySQL license explanations, but IANAL.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Jan Wieck wrote:

Claudio Cicali wrote:

This is *WRONG*.

MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.

Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

Did you even bother to look at that page yourself? It clearly says

Yes, I did.

exactly what I said up there. If your code is available free of change
as open source, then and only then, you and the users of your code are
free from license fees. In any other case you have to buy or keep your
stuff for yourself. Special restrictions apply to any changes you might
want to make to it, and so on and so forth.

(quite) Right. Free of charge and Open Source are not, technically,
synonims. License fees are another story.

Free to me means a little more than "currently free of charge under
certain restrictions that are subject to change under our discretion".
And the latter is how I read the MySQL license explanations, but IANAL.

Wrong.

That's true for *every* software that holds a copyright (as the GPL).
As far as I'm the (only) copyright holder of a software, I (and only me)
could CHANGE COMPLETELY the way I distribute that software. This changes
do not apply to yet-released version.

This, btw, is the problem that currently leaves the new XFree86 version (by 4.3.99)
sligthly away from GPL. They changed the licence to a more restrictive one
(point 4.).

So, your assumption is meangingless.

Jan

--
Claudio Cicali
c.cicali@mclink.it
http://www.flexer.it
GPG Key Fingerprint = 2E12 64D5 E5F5 2883 0472 4CFF 3682 E786 555D 25CE

I'm pretty sure this belongs, if anywhere, on -advocacy, so I've set
Reply-To accordingly. Of course, if you're munging the Reply-To,
that won't work, which is why this little note is here.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:59:24AM +0100, Claudio Cicali wrote:

MySQL, as a *product*, it's not free as you argue. Ok. But MySQL as simple
"software", is free. You can get the whole source and begin "forking" as you
like. This is enough for me, and for anyone pondering "licensing" problems
while choosing a dbms for her company.

Are you quite sure about that? Cause I can say for sure that both my
managers and our customers would think long and hard about my
committal if I suggested that we just fork Postgres and try to
sell things with a proprietary DBMS underneath it. I'd also have to
think pretty hard about whether I'd want to use such a product.

Consider the disadvantages, from the point of view of a customer, of
such a proprietary system. They don't know how stable it is. They
have no point of reference about its stability. They don't know how
many bugs might be lurking in there. Most importantly, if you go
bankrupt, they may not be able to get their data out _at all_.

I know, and probably you know too, that all of those limitations are
also problems for something based on Oracle, or MySQL, or Berkeley
DB, or PostgreSQL: the truth is that most users of an application don't
need to care about the guts underlying it. But they _do_ need to be
able to justify their decisions in case something goes wrong. When
something _does_ go wrong, you can bet that the person who made the
decision to buy the proprietary system will be in trouble unless that
proprietary system comes with a long list of satisfied customers.

And the last point is the rub: if you fork MySQL, you can't use the
MySQL name. So you can't talk about your satisfied customers who are
using MySQL, because you've forked.

I'm not pretending that any of this is rational behaviour, but I'd
think that the last 50 (anyway) years of research in sociology and
economics would convince everyone that the myth of the rational
consumer is handy for economic models, but several degrees removed
from a description of actual human behaviour.

Having access to the source is indeed a protection that proprietary
systems don't usually offer, but only in case there is an active
community supporting the product. If not, the source is a liability,
because you have to support it yourself. This is why fostering an
active community is in the interests of PostgreSQL users, and why I
would be somewhat anxious about the GPLd version of MySQL, even if
MySQL AB was not asserting rather broad application of the GPL beyond
its seeming purpose.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
This work was visionary and imaginative, and goes to show that visionary
and imaginative work need not end up well.
--Dennis Ritchie

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Claudio Cicali wrote:

Jan Wieck wrote:

Claudio Cicali wrote:

This is *WRONG*.

MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.

Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

Did you even bother to look at that page yourself? It clearly says

Yes, I did.

exactly what I said up there. If your code is available free of change
as open source, then and only then, you and the users of your code are
free from license fees. In any other case you have to buy or keep your
stuff for yourself. Special restrictions apply to any changes you might
want to make to it, and so on and so forth.

(quite) Right. Free of charge and Open Source are not, technically,
synonims. License fees are another story.

I'm confused. The message in question used the word "free" along with
qualifications for closed source and last time I checked the word free did
not implicitly mean free software especially when combined with a
qualification for closed source. I mean, I'm not the best English
speaker/writer in the world, but I'd thought the word was in common usage
before the advent of computers. ;)

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Claudio Cicali wrote:

Jean-Michel POURE wrote:

Visit: http://www.mysql.com/company/index.html
"MySQL staff develop new releases every..."

Equal access will (probably) never happen, because MySQL AB would not be able
to release "double-licences" without the agreement of all authors.

Wonder what is missing to Postgresql ? (hint: strong commercial support. No flame, please ! :))

Yes, that same problem has certainly seemed to hamper the implementation
of the apache web server. I mean, no one uses that thing... without a
single strong company behind it, apache has just floundered the last few
years.

Guess what? Both Postgresql and apache have strong commercial support.
It just isn't provided by one company who holds all the strings.

That's a good thing, by the way.

On Tuesday 10 February 2004 12:13 am, Claudio Cicali wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:

On 09/02/2004 15:25 Jan Wieck wrote:

Paul Thomas wrote:
[snip]
In addition to this, "also open source" is correct, but there
are significan differences in the quality of "open" vs. "open".
MySQL is not free, so if the application developed is closed
source, it requires the end user to purchase a commercial MySQL
license per installation.

Another good point in our favour IMHO.

This is *WRONG*.

MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed.

Please refer to this page for further details.
http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html

MySQL seems to have a weird self-serving interpretation of GPL and I
don't trust them. They repeatedly talk about restrictions on
_internal_ distribution. From the MySQL licensing page
(http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html) they have a:

"...Commercial License, which allows you to provide commercial
software licenses to your customers or distribute MySQL-based
applications within your organization. This is for organizations that
do not want to release the source code for their applications as open
source / free software..."

From the MySQL licensing FAQ
(http://www.mysql.com/products/opensource-license.html):
"Free use for those who never copy, modify or distribute. As long as
you never distribute (internally or externally) the MySQL Software in
any way, you are free to use it for powering your application,
irrespective of whether your application is under GPL license or
not."

From the MySQL commercial license page
(http://www.mysql.com/products/commercial-license.html):
"If you distribute MySQL Software within your organization, you should
purchase a commercial license."

The same page in its description of things interpreted to be
commercial distribution of MySQL includes this gem:

"Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves
on their own machines."

If this licensing interpretation applied to Linux (imagining for the
moment that a commercial licence for Linux were to exist) any
organization wishing to use the Linux version of Oracle or OpenOffice
or even PostgreSQL even for strictly internal use would have to
purchase a commercial Linux license.

MySQL claims on its licensing page that "MySQL AB bases its
interpretation of the GPL on the Free Software Foundation's
Frequently Asked Questions" and includes a link to that FAQ but note
the disparity between MySQL's interpretation and the FSF
interpretation which reads
(http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic):

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are
free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever
releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies),
too; an organization can make a modified version and use it
internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

IANAL but it appears to me from their FAQs that MySQL AB seeks to
require any company using a MySQL based product in any way to buy a
commercial license.

I'll stick with PostgreSQL (and not just for the license).

Cheers,
Steve

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Claudio Cicali wrote:

Jean-Michel POURE wrote:

By free, we also mean that a product is developed by a community of people,
not a company raising funds. MySQL AB is mainly backed-up by investors. When
all this money is burnt-away, this will be the end of it.

You can't say what YOU mean with "free". In this context "free" is what is
licensed under GPL or GPL-compatible licenses.

MySQL, as a *product*, it's not free as you argue. Ok. But MySQL as simple
"software", is free. You can get the whole source and begin "forking" as you
like. This is enough for me, and for anyone pondering "licensing" problems
while choosing a dbms for her company.

You isn't quite right here. This does not fix the licensing issues, since
you would still be wholly bound by the GPL. I.e. all the code you write
that connects to MySQL would therefore have to be GPL'd. I.e. it does
nothing to fix the licensing problems that have been brought up.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:50:31AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote:

you would still be wholly bound by the GPL. I.e. all the code you write
that connects to MySQL would therefore have to be GPL'd. I.e. it does
nothing to fix the licensing problems that have been brought up.

I know that's what MySQL claims, but (a) I can't see any plausible
interpretation of the GPL which makes that enforcable; and (b)
assuming someone really did fork, I can't see how MySQL's reading of
the GPL would be relevant (since you'd no longer be using MySQL, but
YourSQL or whatever it was called).

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
--Philip Greenspun

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Andrew Sullivan wrote:

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 09:50:31AM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote:

you would still be wholly bound by the GPL. I.e. all the code you write
that connects to MySQL would therefore have to be GPL'd. I.e. it does
nothing to fix the licensing problems that have been brought up.

I know that's what MySQL claims, but (a) I can't see any plausible
interpretation of the GPL which makes that enforcable; and (b)
assuming someone really did fork, I can't see how MySQL's reading of
the GPL would be relevant (since you'd no longer be using MySQL, but
YourSQL or whatever it was called).

simple. They GPL'd their connection libs. So, if you write code that has
their connection libs in it, it's gotta be GPL'd.

Now, if you don't mind using the ODBC connector, you're scott free. but
you WILL be bound by the GPL, and the GPL (not MySQL's interpretation,
just the GPL in general) being applied to connect libs seriously limits
your ability to distribute code, since you'd have to GPL your own code if
you distributed it outside your own private organization.

Renaming it would do nothing to help you. The GPL would still bite you
pretty hard on distribution if you decide to use the GPL'd connect libs.

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:06:43PM -0700, scott.marlowe wrote:

simple. They GPL'd their connection libs. So, if you write code that has
their connection libs in it, it's gotta be GPL'd.

Yes. But you could fork from their old libs (which were, IIRC, LGPL)
and work from there. Of course, you can't look at the new code
first, but if Compaq could clean room the IBM BIOS, it's gotta be
possible to find someone who knows nothing about this either.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
--Brad Holland

scrawford@pinpointresearch.com (Steve Crawford) writes:

The same page in its description of things interpreted to be
commercial distribution of MySQL includes this gem:

"Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves
on their own machines."

If this licensing interpretation applied to Linux (imagining for the
moment that a commercial licence for Linux were to exist) any
organization wishing to use the Linux version of Oracle or
OpenOffice or even PostgreSQL even for strictly internal use would
have to purchase a commercial Linux license.

I find it disingenous that, in view of this, there is the attempt to
associate MySQL(tm) with 'open source software' like Linux, Perl, and
Apache (those being the other 'members' of "LAMP.")

If Linux, or Apache, or Perl, or any number of the other pieces of
free software that helped to popularize the use of free systems "that
resemble Unix" had had the encumbrances that MySQL AB claims for their
product, they would _never_ have gotten popular the way they have.

The reason why Linux web/file servers pop up everywhere is precisely
because there is NO mandate to report "commercial use" to some fixed
owner that wants to audit licensing fees. They would never have
gotten into such widespread use in industry otherwise.

There's certainly room for PostgreSQL to have a sub-motto something
like:

_PostgreSQL: Free software means no need to fear license audits._
--
"cbbrowne","@","cbbrowne.com"
http://cbbrowne.com/info/sap.html
Canada, Mexico, and Australia form the Axis of Nations That Are
Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America

Andrew --

And the last point is the rub: if you fork MySQL, you can't use the
MySQL name. So you can't talk about your satisfied customers who are
using MySQL, because you've forked.

Also don't forget that currently 100% of the developers on the MySQL core
engine work for MySQL AB. As such, it would be really, really hard for a
forked project to develop the expertise to maintain it. Firebird only
survived because one of the original InterBase developers joined them.

It's like OpenOffice.org. Technically, another company could fork it away
from Sun. But Sun doesn't worry about it, because over half the project
leaders work for them and 100% of the people who have been coding on the
project since its inception. No one else has the expertise.

--
-Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco