Re: mysql.org

[Jeremy Zawodny]

On Sat, Jul 14, 2001 at 03:10:34AM -0400, Britt Johnston wrote:

> Well, what a mess.  It is regretable that this legal issue needs to
> be aired so publically that was certainly not my preference.  I also
> will not get into a flame war, it is not in the best interest of
> mysql. I appreciate all the email I've received with advice and/or
> support - thanks.

It is good to see some discussion taking place here.  Perhaps it will
help make the issues a bit clearer to the folks who have been
wondering what they heck is going on (that's the majority of the
community).

> As far as NuSphere's contribution to MySQL, it is disappointing to
> see our efforts discounted so quickly.

I don't think that folks are discounting your efforts.  In many cases,
folks knew little of what NuSphere had really done to date.

> The Gemini table handler itself is already part of MySQL and is
> licensed under the GPL - go find ha_gemini.cc and you will see it we
> checked it in long ago in V4 and again in 3.23 when V4 was late.
> The Gemini component itself will be released via mysql.org as GPL as
> previously announced - note that Gemini itself is not a derivative
> of MySQL in any way - it's roots date back to long before MySQL
> existed.

There's another source of confusion for people.  The difference
between the Gemini table handler and the "Gemini component itself".
What is the difference?  (I think I might know, but I suspect that
it's not clear to folks who haven't heard you talk about Gemini in
person.)

> Finally independent of the rest of this.  I have the highest respect
> for Monty and what he has done creating MySQL.

A sentiment we all share.

And some (many?) of us realize that NuSphere has a done some
incredible work in an effort to take MySQL up a notch.  NuSphere's
talent and responsiveness was clear to me during the Gemini beta
program.

> I'm certain we can move beyond this and make MySQL an even stronger
> open source project and I encourage everyone move to a constructive
> dialog.

I suspect that in the short term, the legal battles are likely to
become less interesting to this community than:

  * Being presented with the mysql.org site and not understanding
    where it came from, who runs it, and why they should go there.

  * The affects that this will have on the community.  Are there going
    to be separate mysql.org hosted mailing lists which overlap in
    funtionality and audience with those hosted here?

  * Will it become less clear where users should go for information,
    documentation, downloads, and so on?

  * Understanding the differences between NuSphere's MySQL and MySQL
    AB's MySQL distributions.  I know that they are relatively few
    now, but will that continute to be the case?  Who knows.

Those are the sort of concerns which motivated my statements in the
MySQL press release a few days ago.  I think that the MySQL community
today is excellent--one of the best surrounding any piece of Open
Source software today: Linux, FreeBSD, Perl, Apache, PHP, Python,
MySQL, etc.  They all have great communities.

None of us want to see the community sidetracked, fragmented, or
otherwise damaged as a result of this.  Having read about the old
XEmacs fork from GNU Emacs, that sort of stuff doesn't sound pleasant.

We have a great forum for discussion right here.  I'd suggest that
when feasible, folks should talk to the community.  Find out what
folks here think about having a new/different web site, forked code,
or whatever may be brewing.  Unlike slashdot, folks here are apt to
think before writing the first thing that pops into their heads.

Given that this mailing list has been a large part of the MySQL
community, it'd be great to see folks from NuSphere on it in a while.

Jeremy (trying not to fuel any fires)
-- 
Jeremy D. Zawodny, <jzawodn@stripped>
Technical Yahoo - Yahoo Finance
Desk: [phone]   Fax: [phone]   Cell: [phone] <-- NEW

MySQL 3.23.29: up 28 days, processed 213,565,627 queries (88/sec. avg)