Re: mysql.org

[Marten Mickos]

In response to the posting by Thomas J Keller of Britt Johnston's text, I 
feel I have to come with the following comments.

(The quoted text marked with ">" is by Britt Johnston)

 >mysql.org has not been publically announced and it will take
 >some time for it to become the thriving community it is destined
 >to be.  My hope is that rather than fighting it, you can join it
 >and be part of an even more vibrant mysql community.

We do not oppose communities that form around a common interest in our 
product. But we do mind if our trademark is used without authorisation. So 
we are not fighting the community, we are fighting the violations of our 
rights.

Is there any reason for not operating the site under the nusphere.org name 
or some other name?


 >It is disappointing that our friends from MySQL AB seem threatened
 >by the creation of noncommercial site to promote mysql that they
 >jump in and announce it themselves to the world and claim they
 >were not informed.  The facts are they were informed and invited
 >to participate, their response is what you have read.

The last sentence is untrue. MySQL AB was not invited, nor informed of 
this. The last record we have that relates to mysql.org is from early June 
when we asked NuSphere to transfer the domain to us, and Lorne Cooper 
replied that NuSphere refuses to do so. He also noted that NuSphere had not 
populated the site.

We do not oppose any creation of a concommercial site to promote the MySQL 
server. But we do mind ... (see my comment above).


 >You mention specifically that you believe we have no right to the
 >domain name.  The facts are that we believe we have a right under
 >an agreement that was signed by both Monty and David that provided
 >us with broad rights to mysql related names.  In fact we paid a
 >significant sum of money for the ability to use those names and
 >other items and that same agreement in fact required MySQL
 >to be released under the GPL.  Now that MySQL AB has taken on
 >venture capital funding and hired new management, they want to
 >ignore those agreements.

There WAS an interim agreement from June 2000 to be replaced within 3 
months by a final agreement. We have confirmed to NuSphere in writing the 
termination of the interim agreement. It has not been in force for some time.

For the records, it was only David Axmark who signed it and faxed it to 
Progress. Progress or NuSphere have never sent us a version with their 
signatures.

When it was in force, the interim agreement did NOT provide NuSphere with 
broad rights to use the MySQL name.

Under the agreement, Progress paid a total of USD 312,501 with the last 
check being cut in September 2000. See 
http://www.mysql.com/news/article-75.html for more information on this.

The comment by Britt on vc funding and new management is under the belt in 
my opinion.


 >Your comments about us not participating in any meaninful fashion
 >in the open source community are disappointing because it means
 >NuSphere has not done a good job communicating its work, I believe
 >we provide a significant service and have allowed many people who
 >otherwise could not use open source software to use it because of
 >our work on improving windows ports, integration of components,
 >and major features.  We contribute back fixes and improvements to
 >many open source communities including apache, perl, php and mysql.
 >Much of that work is available at no cost through downloads at our
 >website.  I'd invite you to download and try NuSphere MySQL and
 >see an example of what we have done.

I would hope the discussion could stay away from topics of this sort. We 
appreciate and respect many things NuSphere, and Britt personally, have done.

 >The importance of our investment is reflected in Monty's own words:
 >"NuSphere has identified a very important technical enhancement
 >needed to transform MySQL into an enterprise-enabled database capable
 >of competing with commercial heavyweights," said Michael "Monty"
 >Widenius, chief technology officer of MySQL AB. "In MySQL's five-year
 >history, this is the most significant contribution from a source
 >outside MySQL AB that has ever occurred."

MySQL AB is not trying to devalue the investment in Gemini. But there are 
people who believe that NuSphere or Progress paid MySQL AB $2.5 million and 
that NuSphere is somehow part of the MySQL server development team, none of 
which is true. Therefore we have communicated that the development of the 
MySQL server is done by and funded by MySQL AB alone.


 >We also support the community by sponsoring and helping organize
 >events such as the OSCON 2001 with O'Reilly, Open Source Database
 >Summit with OSDN, and the Linux Legacy through Geek Cruises to name
 >a few.  We are proud of the significant investment we make in these
 >areas so that the open source community can meet and learn from each
 >other face to face.

This is fine, and nobody wants to take that pride away from NuSphere. 
However, from our perspective this is not related to the topic discussed 
here now.

 >As we said last January, we planned on Gemini being released
 >under an open source license as part of the launch of MySQL 4.0,
 >but that release has not shipped so we have decided to release
 >the source through mysql.org instead soon after its launch (the
 >community needs to setup CVS to support that effort).  Note that
 >Gemini has both commercial and open source licenses just like
 >MySQL itself and the products we are currently shipping are
 >provided with a commercial license of Gemini.  We absolutely
 >believe we have the right to do this.

Regarding the GPL violation we state the following: NuSphere is and has 
been shipping a product that includes the MySQL server under GPL and the 
Gemini component, with the Gemini component statically linked to the MySQL 
server. The source code of Gemini or a written offer to provide it is not 
included in the package, wherefore this constitutes a violation of GPL.

It would have been very easy not to violate the GPL by adding the Gemini 
source to the package. But NuSphere did not do that, and, excuse my 
language, any explanation is just a bad excuse in my opinion.


 >In closing, I hope you will take a moment to see things from our
 >perspective and understand that we want a strong mysql community
 >as strong as apache or php and one that is not controlled by a
 >single commercial company.

We at MySQL AB do not dream of controlling the MySQL community. For 
instance, we do not require registration by those who download our 
products. In stead we take every effort to support the community and make 
superior products available to them. Thereafter it is up to each individual 
user to decide what community (or communities) he or she wishes to belong 
to. I think numbers speak for themselves. There are more than 2 million 
MySQL users in the world, and that is much more than we have on our mailing 
lists or in our customer databases.

And finally let us not forget that the community we have today has been 
built up over many years by not only MySQL AB but by numerous other groups 
and companies who have silently or officially, and often with no financing, 
contributed in many different ways and without violating trademark or other 
rights. These heroes should always be remembered when we talk about the 
success of MySQL.


Marten Mickos
CEO
MySQL AB