PlanetMysql.ru — информация о СУБД MySQL

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.

Following the release of our report, ‘The Myth of Open Source License Proliferation’ and during research for it, we heard and sensed a feeling that open source software licenses had evolved to become a generally well-accepted piece of the the enterprise IT and IP market. However, we also heard from numerous vendors, developers and other individuals that the next battlefront is obviously software patents, which are in need of reform, according to many supporters of free and open source software.

This week, we saw some of the software patent skirmishes that are driving and validating this thinking. There was first news that the Open Invention Network, the consortium dedicated to legal and IP defense of Linux, had bought some software patents that related to Linux, which admittedly is not hard to do these days. It turned out the 22 Linux-focused patents were purchased from Allied Security Trust, which had actually purchased them from none other than Microsoft. This might not have meant a whole lot, with OIN proclaiming a victory and Microsoft stating simply that the patents did not hold much value to them. However, the plot thickened as we heard from FOSS defender Eben Moglen, from Linux Foundation executive director Jim Zemlin and from vendor Red Hat, that Microsoft may have been shopping the patents around to would-be patent trolls who would do the dirty work of FUD on their own.

Frankly, it has been my position that the market is determining the fate of Linux in embedded uses, mobile devices, desktops, servers, clusters and clouds, and no vendor or vendor-generated FUD will significantly disrupt that. Still, I recognize the importance of promptly and directly countering FUD. Microsoft is largely sticking to its story that the patents did not represent significant value and were thus put on the block for sale. Although it might not acknowledge it, the company is actually correct in that asserted patents or IP that relate in any way to Linux or other open source technologies are of little value, since asserting them invokes the full and forceful response of Linux and its defenders, ranging from the likes of Moglen, Zemlin and the OIN to bitter rivals such as Red Hat and IBM.

The patent spat is also juxtaposed against Microsoft’s efforts to participate and improve its profile in open source and among developers with the CodePlex Foundation as covered by Matt, which also marks the departure of Sam Ramji, who has skillfully headed Microsoft’s efforts to change stance and approach on open source and will be sorely missed.

If we were keeping score, I would say Linux and open source have scored a point (acquiring the patents) while Microsoft has lost one (Ramji’s departure). However, I must also point out that in today’s enterprise IT environments and markets, it is very rare to see a case of EITHER open source OR proprietary software and is almost always in a case of BOTH. We have seen attacks on open source, from Microsoft and others, evolve from targeting its core tenets and ideas to attacking open source licensing. As open source and proprietary software continue to interface, interact and integrate, the patent questions, threats and implications seem to be the next battlefield, only this time Linux and open source are far better established and armed while Microsoft is coming to grips with its loss of market control.

Topics for this podcast:

*EC pauses Oracle-Sun over MySQL
* Open source licenses debated
* Red Hat growth opportunities and Summit roundup
* Reductive Labs seeking cloud role for Puppet software
* VMware-SpringSource analyzed

iTunes or direct download (26:04, 5.9 MB)