PlanetMysql.ru – информация о СУБД MySQL

There are signals of continued problems and dysfunction — namely lack of support, organization and communication — in the OpenSolaris community. This follows on a deterioration of the OS leadership and support since Oracle bought Sun Microsystems, including the elimination of OpenSolaris CDs, one of the things that made the open source version of Solaris more like Linux.

We had speculated on the fate of Sun open source software under Oracle and while we acknowledged Oracle’s participation in, contribution and commitment to and opportunity from open source software, we questioned its appreciation of open source software communities beyond code and customers. It appears the OpenSolaris community and thus the OS itself, which we believe is key to advancing development of the more popular, proprietary cousin Solaris — are not a priority for Oracle.

The same cannot be said for all open source from Sun, and there’s a lot of it, now at Oracle. Amid the struggles of the OpenSolaris community, one of the other open source keystones from Sun, MySQL, seems to be doing well, despite persisting claims Oracle purchased Sun and MySQL simply to keep it from competing with Oracle database products. According to a Jaspersoft survey of customers/developers, there is a lack of awareness or concern of Oracle’s involvement in MySQL (59 percent were not aware Oracle reorganized and established a separate MySQL business unit apart from Oracle’s traditional RDBMS business …). Another 43% of Jaspersoft’s respondents said MySQL development and innovation would improve under Oracle.

The Jaspersoft survey found even more love for Java under Oracle, with 80 percent of respondents indicating they believe the Java process will improve or stay the same under Oracle. The related GlassFish application server also appears to be healthy with both community and commercial versions recently released.

The OpenOffice community appears also to be continuing forward supported and unfettered by Oracle (perhaps because it was typically fettered by Sun?), but it may also me failing to fully seize the opportunity.

It has also been interesting to see how Sun’s cloud computing technology has helped give Oracle new love for the term and the market.

There are a number of key open source projects and pieces from Sun, those listed above as well as many others, that may be on the line right now (or may have already been branded ’stay’ or ’stop’). We will be watching to see how Sun’s open source continues to shine or to set at Oracle.

There was another acquisition involving open source software recently when Consona bought Compiere, but what is perhaps most striking about the deal from an open source software perspective is how little it and the Compiere community mattered in the deal.

By most accounts, including that of fellow open source ERP player xTuple CEO Ned Lilly, who offers an interesting and accurate depiction of Compiere’s changes, acknowledge the movement away from community that occurred over the last few years at Compiere. As discussed in our own recent report on the deal, we are also somewhat skeptical over the fate of what is left of Compiere’s open source community, even though Consona plans to continue offering both paid and free versions. At the same time, we are also wondering whether it will matter much — to Consona, to Compiere or even to its customers?

So how does this jibe, or not, with our views on how M&A deals and valuations involving open source software vendors tend to highlight the value of open source communities?

Community has served to drive up the price in deals stretching back for years (Citrix-XenSource for $500m, August 2007; Nokia-Trolltech at $153m, January 2008; Sun-MySQL for $1 billion, January 2008; VMware-SpringSource $420m, August 2009), but the reality in the case of Consona-Compiere (price not disclosed) is that community, or lack of a vibrant open source software community, may have actually driven the price down.

We must also consider the significance of cloud computing here. Cloud capabilities and possibilities in the enterprise version of Compiere’s platform may have trumped community in this case, but the deal still serves to remind open source software companies, as well as their existing and potential partners and acquirers, that community counts.

We’ve long wondered what might happen to all of that open source software from Sun Microsystems now that it’s at Oracle? Obviously, some pieces continue to live at Oracle (Java, Solaris, MySQL), but there are a number of open source projects that Oracle has either neglected to talk about or have been overlooked, particularly as we focused on user reactions, implications and finally approval of Oracle’s acquisition of Sun.

One significant group of open source technologies from Sun is its OpenSSO single sign-on identity and access management software, which is now serving as the basis for startup ForgeRock. The company, based in Norway, plans to not only support, but to also extend the OpenSSO platform and provide identity and authentication, and then additional components such as directory service and portal. The OpenSSO source code, licensed under the CDDL open source license, will be renamed under ForgeRock’s Open Access Management (OpenAM) brand, but backers insist they are not forking OpenSSO, for which Oracle still owns copyrights. Instead, ForgeRock says it intends to provide some continuity for OpenSSO users and it is already providing subscriptions for customers including online gambling service provider Betfair and Norwegian state railway company NBS AS. Similar to the code for ForgeRock originating at Sun Microsystems, so have many of its executives, including: Chief Strategy Officer Simon Phipps, formerly Sun’s chief open source strategist, CEO Lasse Andresen, a former Sun CTO, and Director of Sales Hermann Svoren, a former Sun Client Executive.

The use of the open source technologies developed at Sun now, after the company has been absorbed by Oracle, is a shining example of the efficiency of open source software. If the code truly has potential and legs, as its open source-experienced backers believe it does, they are free to take that code and run with it, regardless of how that may or may not fit into Oracle’s strategy and competitive perspective. This makes ForgeRock’s technology among the most interesting of Sun’s legacy of open source software to watch.

I caught some of the keynotes and discussion at the Linux Foundation Collaboration Summit today, and was particularly interested in the panel discussion on open source and cloud computing. While we are used to hearing and talking about how important open source software is to cloud computing (open source giving to cloud computing), moderator John Mark Walker posed the question of whether cloud computing gives back? The discussion also rightfully focused on openness in cloud computing, how open source might or might not translate to cloud openness and the importance of data to be open as well.

The discussion also centered on some issues regarding open standards and how open is open enough for cloud computing? It may depend on who you ask, but I tend to think that the flexibility, interoperability and portability advantages of open source software will dictate its continued use and true openness in the cloud.

However, this is not always the case. When we consider openness in the mobile market, we see that while open source software is going into more and more smartphones and mobile devices, by the time it gets into the product and into the hands of consumers, it ends up closed. This is not necessarily a violation of open source license, either in rule or in spirit, but rather the use, incorporation and reliance on open source alongside proprietary products, strategies and companies, typically under a permissive license. Much of it also has to do with the need, both perceived and real, for control of code in these devices among hardware, software, wireless carrier and other players with a stake.

Another interesting perspective of what open source means, or doesn’t mean, in terms of cloud computing, standards and interoperability comes from the Xen community’s Simon Crosby of Citrix.

One of the most interesting things to watch when considering whether cloud computing gives back to open source is the AGPLv3 license, which is viewed in different ways as both a burden and a boon to network-based, distributed development by various parties. We continue to see vendors, such as mobile software player Funambol, as strong supporters of AGPL while others, such as Google, continue their resistence to it.

The AGPL also came up in the Linux Foundation Collaboration summit panel again, and while I don’t think the license currently serves as the answer to whether cloud computing gives back to open source, we do see some benefits to open source from cloud computing, both in terms of code, projects and communities and the commercial vendors leveraging open source software. In terms of code, large users of open source software projects, such Linux, MySQL, Hadoop, Cassandra, help to raise the profile and credibility of open source. Whether corporations or university campuses, these large users can also be among the most active community participants — driving features and shaking out bugs, and most prolific code contributors — creating features and extensions and enlarging the ecosystem. In terms of commercial open source vendors, cloud computing can also mitigate the challenges of balancing and differentiating free, community versions and separate, paid versions. If the vendor is able to offer support, services or even extensions with the cloud version of its software, it is easily separated from a free, community version that may be available for free, but not from the cloud.

Of course, there is more that cloud computing can do for open source and there is much more that has to be done to ensure true openness in cloud computing, particularly when some existing and emerging defacto standards are anything but open, but for all that open source is to cloud computing, cloud computing seems to be returning the favor to some degree already.

One of the first special reports I wrote for 451 Group was an analysis of the open source systems management vendors on the scene — GroundWork, Hyperic, Zenoss, OpenNMS Group, Nagios Enterprises and some others. These named ones are those that made it and while there was some reckoning in the market and there have been changes, it is interesting to see these players still plugging away, pushing into new markets and powering open source for systems, network and application monitoring and management, including cloud computing environments.

When acquired by SpringSource a year ago, there was some question as to the real value of open source systems monitoring and management company Hyperic, which had taken the most pronounced and aggressive move toward the cloud. Flash forward to VMware’s latest SpringSource tc Server release and we see VMware, at the very least, still sees technical and market value in Hyperic, which continues to be its cloud appliation and infrastructure monitoring technology and brand. Hyperic and its acquisition by SpringSource also served as an early milestone in the devops trend.

As for GroundWork Open Source, the company just made an announcement for monitoring private clouds created with Eucalyptus Systems, which continues to gain buzz and attention itself with its recent hiring of former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos. The GroundWork-Eucalyptus joint offering, intended to provide one point of control for datacenters and cloud computing environments both private and public, is also intended for channel partners (which represent about half of GroundWork’s revenue) to offer Eucalyptus-based private clouds with monitoring as well.

Zenoss is another vendor that continues to leverage open source for systems management that is finding continued interest and traction in large part thanks to emergent models and strategies in cloud computing. In its case, Zenoss announced it will provide service assurance monitoring for private and public clouds based on Cisco’s Unified Computing System. The beta service promises enterprises and service providers fast and cost effective deployment of a unified operations console for UCS services, which could include physical, virtual and/or cloud computing environments.

There are also others that are still growing in the enterprise systems monitoring and management space with open source software: Nagios Enterprises and OpenNMS Group in particular. Nagios Enterprises, which shares the same name as the popular open source monitoring project, continues to grow its enterprise and cloud presence despite a fork and check on its development last year.

OpenNMS Group, among the most community and project-oriented of the open source commercial plays in systems management, is part of an interesting effort toward a cloud service broker (CSB), aimed at enabling service providers to connect to various cloud providers, along with British Telecom and others.

Given much of the efficiency and rewards of cloud computing center on driving greater utilization and efficiency, it is not surprising that monitoring is a big part of it. Given the trend toward using open source pieces for cloud computing, particularly as we consider the current wave of investment and building of private cloud infrastructures where open source is very well-suited, it is not surprising to see open source a big part of it, too.

Topics for this podcast:

*Jacobsen v. Katzer and open source impact
*Intel, Nokia team up for MeeGo open source OS
*Open source continues in embedded space
*MongoDB and the advent of the NoSQL databases
*Copyrights, complexities, control and conflict

iTunes or direct download (21:48, 6.07 MB)

Topics for this podcast:

*Matt Asay moves from Alfresco to Canonical
*GPL fade fuels heated discussion
*Apple’s iPad and its enterprise and open source impact
*Open source in data warehousing and storage
*Our perspective on Oracle’s plans for Sun open source

iTunes or direct download (32:50, 9.2 MB)

We’re continuing to see signs that the dominant GPL open source license may be fading from favor among commercial open source software players. The latest move away from the GPL comes from content management software vendor Alfresco, which is moving to the LGPL after originally releasing its code under the GPL three years ago. The reasoning for the shift, according to Alfresco CEO John Newton, is the company sees greater opportunity beyond being a software application, particularly given the emergence of the Content Management Interoperability Services standard. Alfresco won mostly praise for its move, and it does make sense given where open source is going these days.

I believe the emerging trend away from GPL and toward more permissive, mixable licenses such as LGPL or Apache reflects the broadening out of open source software not only throughout the enterprise IT software stack, but also throughout uses beyond individual applications, frameworks and systems. More and more open source software vendors are pursuing opportunities in embedded use or OEM deals whereby open source software often must sit alongside or even inside of proprietary code and products. Similar to what we’ve seen in the mobile space — where open source software and development are more prominent than ever, but end products with accessible code are not — open source is broadening out, but it is doing so in many cases by integrating with proprietary code.

We also see some debate about the community and commercial ups and downs of GPL as organizations contemplate the balance of the two and the best way to achieve commercial success with open source software. As Matt highlights, we are seeing a choice of non-GPL licensing in order to more effectively foster community and third-party involvement, but we also continue to see GPL as a top choice to similarly build community.

While the debate about community versus commercial benefit may not necessarily be prompting movement away from GPL, I believe another recent action may indeed do so. The latest series of GPL lawsuits are aimed at raising awareness, profile and legitimacy for open source software. While those bringing the suits — primarily the Software Freedom Law Center — have exhibited a reasonable approach and settled with past lawsuit targets, these suits and publicity may still serve to steer organizations making the choice to other licenses, including the LGPL, BSD, Apache and the Eclipse Public License.

Another factor is the GPL thumping that took place during the SaveMySQL campaign as the European Commission contemplated Oracle’s proposed (and now closed) acquisition of Sun Microsystems and the open source MySQL. I voiced my concern that the SaveMySQL campaign might jeopardize or de-value open source software projects and pieces in M&A, but I believe I’m actually in agreement with SaveMySQL leader Monty Widenius that the deal and process may end up tarnishing the GPL and its reputation in the enterprise.

As stated above, much of the movement we’re seeing away from the GPL has to do with the desire and opportunity to place open source software alongside, within, on top of or otherwise with proprietary software. Non-GPL open source licenses are also more flexible in terms of integrating and bundling with other open source software licensed under other, non-GPL licenses.

We anticipated this fade of GPL as covered in our report, The Myth of Open Source License Proliferation. Given its clout, durability and continued popularity in commercial open source (and with help from continued growth of GPL-licensed Linux) we believe the GPL will endure as a top open source license. However, given their flexibility and the ability to combine with other code, we see a number of other challengers — Apache, BSD, EPL and LGPL — rising while GPL dominance wanes. We’re also watching to see whether the AGPLv3 for networked software will provide new life for GPL-style licensing and community building in emerging virtualized, SaaS and cloud computing environments.

A recent pitch from the folks opposing Oracle’s ownership of MySQL via acquisition of Sun Microsystems got me thinking. The plea, ‘Oracle can have Sun, but not MySQL’ may make sense to some, but to me it speaks to the irony of closing out Oracle or any company or anyone from open source. Upon further reflection and given 2010 is off to a roaring pace of M&A, I also began to wonder what the impact of the ‘Save MySQL’ campaign could be on open source in M&A, particularly if it was to successfully derail the acquisition or somehow decouple MySQL from Sun under Oracle?

What would it mean to carve out the open source projects, components, teams and support from companies involved in mergers and acquisitions over the last few years?

Would Citrix have still bought XenSource if Xen were cut out or somehow separated in any way shape or form from the deal? Would it have paid $500m?

Would Nokia have bought Trolltech and Qt for $153m?

More recently, would VMware have purchsed SpringSource for $420m if some or any of SpringSource’s open source projects, developers or holdings — including its own acquisitions Covalent and Hyperic — were not included?

Oh yeah, would we even be here with MySQL owned by Sun Microsystems if Sun were prevented from fully acquiring the project, code and company despite spending $1 billion two years ago?

Some degree of concern about Oracle’s potential ownership of MySQL or any ownership of open source projects and code is certainly warrented and prudent, but I don’t believe the fear that punctuates the message of the ‘Save MySQL’ campaign makes much sense. This is particularly so in light of the past deals listed here and others where the market has required continued investment and support of open source and provided continued revenue and benefits from open source.

While some of these scenarios may be admittedly implausible, I believe that separating out open source components, parts, projects and subsidiaries from vendors could certainly serve to dull the shine of open source software assets and vendors amid M&A valuations, prospects and strategy.

The complaints and concerns over Oracle’s pending acquisition of Sun Microsystems and open source MySQL database grew this week to calls for the acquisition, or at least the relatively small MySQL part of it, to be blocked. The Open Rights Group calling for such blockage was joined by none other than the father of the free software movement, Richard Stallman. However, I have to once again question how free and open are these free and open source software advocates? Is the movement and FOSS open to all (except Microsoft, Oracle or anyone else the Open Rights Group, Richard Stallman or any other number of FOSS groups or figures so deems at some point in the future)? Sounds like the kind of control and red tape we refer to when we warn vendors against undoing the benefits of open source, particularly openness, flexibility and transparency.

Funny how we were contemplating similar concerns about MySQL’s open source fate when Sun acquired MySQL for $1 billion in 2008. Sun ended up having minimal impact on the open source nature of MySQL, thanks in part to the force and direction of the MySQL community.

Still, would we expect Oracle to do any worse than Sun in terms of supporting integration and continued progress for their new product? I think we would actually expect quite a bit more from Oracle, which has illustrated its ability to both execute and integrate numerous times in the past.

The argument to keep Oracle from acquiring MySQL is reminiscent of the loud calls to keep Microsoft from getting some of its software licenses approved as open source by the OSI. It also has parallels to the restriction of open source software from military and weapons uses. Although it might not be tasteful to all supporters of free and open source software, their very mantras and doctrines dictate their software and communites are open to all equally. Anything less is a contradiction of the core ideology of free and open source software.

We’ve expressed our own concerns about Oracle taking over MySQL, including the idea that Oracle may have a somewhat limited appreciation of open source community. However, in the end, and with reinforcement at last week’s Oracle OpenWorld, the company appears to realize the value and purpose of MySQL and its community. Whatever Oracle does not know or understand about MySQL, its community, its customers or open source, the vendor will most likely learn quickly if history is precedent.