Re: Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oliver Elphick [mailto:olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 08, 2003 3:10 PM
> To: Vivek Khera
> Cc: PostgreSQL general list
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Humor me: Postgresql vs. MySql (esp. licensing)
>
>
> On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 20:28, Vivek Khera wrote:
> > >>>>> "OE" == Oliver Elphick <olly(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> >
> > OE> But as far as Debian is concerned, paragraph 1 applies:
> >
> > OE> 1. Free use for those who are 100% GPL
> >
> > [[ ... ]]
> >
> > OE> That makes it free under the Debian Free Software
> Guidelines, so I
> > OE> have no grounds for requesting its removal. :-(
> >
> > So if I build and sell an appliance (hardware+software) based on
> > debian and using the 'free' collection of software,
> suddenly I'm not
> > in compliance with their license. Sounds like a time-bomb
> waiting to
> > explode.
>
> It's licensed under the GPL, which means that you can indeed
> sell it, SO LONG AS you make your own source code available
> to your customer under the GPL or a compatible licence.
> Nothing in the GPL stops you demanding money for the
> software; what it requires is that you make your source code
> available.

Then who's going to pay for it?

> It's whole purpose is to force the freeing of
> source code; it is not much concerned with money. For
> example, I remember years ago installing a DG Aviion
> operating system upgrade, where I found that the compiler was
> gcc, with the GPL prominently attached. And every
> embedded-Linux device is in the same situation.
>
> MySQL's licence does not require you to buy a licence for
> _any_ commercial use, but only for commercial use where you
> do not release your source code under a GPL-compatible licence.
>
> There seems to be an awful lot of confusion about the GPL.
> Maybe Microsoft's campaign has been bearing fruit in unlikely
> quarters...

The reason that there is a lot of confusion is that the license
conditions are extremely confusing.

> --
> Oliver Elphick
> Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
> Isle of Wight, UK
> http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
> GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0
> E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
> ========================================
> "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of
> God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither
> tempteth he any man; But every man is tempted, when he
> is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed."
> James 1:13,14
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index
> scan if your
> joining column's datatypes do not match
>

> Then who's going to pay for it?

Just because you ship it to them GPL does not mean that it is publicly
accessible.

For exsample, if I have a product that I built for a customer, I would
have to give it to them under the GPL. But I also have the choice to not
give it to them AT ALL. So, they pay me to get it, and the license is the
GPL. Their other choice, if they didn't pay me, would be to not have it
at all. It's likely that I could sell this same software to multiple
entities, because the likelihood of the first company having the time,
personel, and motivation to just giving it away on the Internet are very
small.

In addition, if you make it available at stores, people will buy it for
convenience, like they do with Red Hat and Star Office.

> The reason that there is a lot of confusion is that the license
> conditions are extremely confusing.

I haven't found this to be true. Most people just don't read the license
and assume they know what it says. For a license, it's pretty
straightforward. Not as straightforward as MIT/X, but pretty
straightforward nonetheless. In fact, most of the complications come from
copyright law itself(i.e. - the definition of a derivative work), and not
the GPL.

Jon

[sNip]
> For exsample, if I have a product that I built for a customer, I would
> have to give it to them under the GPL. But I also have the choice to not
> give it to them AT ALL. So, they pay me to get it, and the license is
> the GPL. Their other choice, if they didn't pay me, would be to not have
> it at all. It's likely that I could sell this same software to multiple
> entities, because the likelihood of the first company having the time,
> personel, and motivation to just giving it away on the Internet are very
> small.
[sNip]

In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Inter-Corporate Computer & Network Services, Inc.
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
http://www.8x.ca/

This message originated from within a secure, reliable,
high-performance network ... a Novell NetWare network.

Randolf Richardson, DevNet SysOp 29 wrote:
> [sNip]
> > For exsample, if I have a product that I built for a customer, I would
> > have to give it to them under the GPL. But I also have the choice to not
> > give it to them AT ALL. So, they pay me to get it, and the license is
> > the GPL. Their other choice, if they didn't pay me, would be to not have
> > it at all. It's likely that I could sell this same software to multiple
> > entities, because the likelihood of the first company having the time,
> > personel, and motivation to just giving it away on the Internet are very
> > small.
> [sNip]
>
> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)

Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
and set up shop right away selling it too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

[sNip]
>> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
>> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
>
> Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
> and set up shop right away selling it too.

Ah, so even the GPL has a few loop holes! =D

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

On Tue, 2003-11-25 at 16:58, Randolf Richardson wrote:
> [sNip]
> >> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
> >> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
> >
> > Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
> > and set up shop right away selling it too.
>
> Ah, so even the GPL has a few loop holes! =D

Not really. Well, actually no. One of the goals of the GPL is to make it
possible for this very thing to happen.

I can get GPLed software (however, by paying or for free), and the
source for it and do whatever I want with it, including on-selling
copies or derived works.

The only catch is that my copies and derived works must also be licenced
under the GPL.

Stephen

Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> writes:
> [sNip]
>>> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
>>> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
>>
>> Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
>> and set up shop right away selling it too.
>
> Ah, so even the GPL has a few loop holes! =D

If you read the GPL very carefully, you may find that it was crafted
with considerable care and intent.

I _don't_ think what MySQL AB is doing with it is quite what was
intended, but the various side-effects that you see are, by and large,
quite intentional, even the ones that don't play into scenarios of
Richard Stallman as "Evil Overlord."
--
wm(X,Y):-write(X),write('@'),write(Y). wm('cbbrowne','ntlug.org').
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/spreadsheets.html
"World domination. Fast." -- Linus Torvalds

[sNip]
> If you read the GPL very carefully, you may find that it was crafted
> with considerable care and intent.

Oh, please don't misunderstand me, I wasn't implying that there was
anything wrong with such a loophole; after all, some loopholes are
intentional. =)

Although I view the GPL as well-intended to ensure that free software
remains that way, I still find that the BSD License seems to be better suited
to the needs of businesses at this point in time.

> I _don't_ think what MySQL AB is doing with it is quite what was
> intended, but the various side-effects that you see are, by and large,
> quite intentional, even the ones that don't play into scenarios of
> Richard Stallman as "Evil Overlord."

The big question is this: Has the GPL been violated by MySQL?

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> writes:
>> I _don't_ think what MySQL AB is doing with it is quite what was
>> intended, but the various side-effects that you see are, by and
>> large, quite intentional, even the ones that don't play into
>> scenarios of Richard Stallman as "Evil Overlord."
>
> The big question is this: Has the GPL been violated by MySQL?

The MySQL AB interpretation that any use of their software under the
GPL inherits to mandating that your software be licensed under the GPL
certainly seems controversial.

<http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml>

In that interview, the indication is that by separating components
into "client" and "server" bits, using CORBA, the GPL can be
circumvented because the client and server aren't "linked." Which is
the opposite of what MySQL AB is telling people.

The MySQL AB strategy doesn't seem to involve the "client-vs-server"
issue. Arguing that your client must be GPL-licensed because the
server is wouldn't fly terribly far. Instead, they only provide
_client_ software in GPL-licensed form, as _that_ would "taint" the
software you might link to it such that it would have to be
GPL-licensed.

<http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=sapdb-general&m=106045880005921&w=2>

What is very interesting is that they oppose attempts to circumvent
this by someone prepared to write their own client. (The discussion
came up when SAP-DB users were distressed that they would no longer be
able to get a LGPL-licensed client library, and were discussing the
possibility of writing their own...)

"In this case, I would suspect that the intent of your middleware is
what would matter most in a court case. If the middleware appears to
mostly be in place to circumvent licensing restrictions, then it (I
believe) would not circumvent the license. If the middleware is an
abstraction layer that simply allows for convenient access to a
variety of different data sources, then the license might be
circumvented." -- Zak Greant <zak(at)mysql(dot)com>

What is also very interesting is that many/most of the uses of "client
libraries" get embedded into PHP/Perl/Python modules, which leads to a
mishmash of licenses that may (as with PHP) make redistribution of the
client libraries nonpermissible.

Long and short... No, I don't see that the GPL has been "violated."

But if the GPL is intended as a 'protector/encourager of free
software,' their use of it seems to me to be about as distant from
that _intent_ as possible.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="ntlug.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/postgresql.html
If the FreeBSD team could get away with it, they would probably use
warnings like "Contains live plague bacteria. Beware the Rabid
Hippopotami. May cause nausea and vomiting."
-- Michael Lucas, re: FreeBSD-CURRENT

Randolf Richardson Wrote:

> Although I view the GPL as well-intended to ensure that free software
> remains that way, I still find that the BSD License seems to be better
suited
> to the needs of businesses at this point in time.
>
As long as we are on the subject of licenses, here is my point of view:
Different licenses for different businesses. I am also trying to show why
PostgreSQL's licensing puts it in a good position to take advantage of
MySQL's mistakes.

Open source licenses really break down into three main groups each of which
do a good job of serving the needs of certain types of businesses, and each
group has its major success stories...

1) GPL-- includes a few derivative licenses as well from the FSF and
others. Best success stories are Linux and the GCC. I personally doubt
that IBM would be hiring so many developers to work on the Linux kernel of
Sun could take the code and incorporate it into Solaris. Major business
benefit for the GPL.

2) BSD/MIT class of licenses. Success stories include BIND and Apache.
Helps build a wider community of proprietary and open source developers.

3) Alladin Public License and spinn-offs. The APL is designed to allow the
software to be used in other open source projects, and be distributed free
of charge. However, if MAY NOT be distributed for a fee or tied to services
without additional permission from the vendor. This has the business
benefit of ensuring greater royalites. There have been several success
stories here (iirc. Ghostscript was once and may still be released under
this license, as is PDFLib).

The big issue with licensing here, however, is the fact that MySQL, by
releasing the client libraries uder the GPL has essentially said that any
developers building proprietary apps must buy expensive licenses from them.
This is similar to what Trolltech has done with QT. The result is that,
although these products (MySQL and QT) have large open source followings,
the are not making large inroads into corporate space, and will likely never
do so when there are more free alternatives to be had (PostgreSQL, GTK+,
etc).

Now, the MySQL issues can be easily circumvented. One could relatively
easily write (in PHP), a GPL'd middle component which would provide a simple
SOAP interface for MySQL, and then use proprietary apps to connect to it--
one could even distribute the MySQL client libs without infracting on the
license in that way, but it is too much overhead and quite frankly work when
there are better alternatives.

The GPL was designed with the idea that programs would be relatively
self-contained, and that non-GPL'd programs could easily interact with them.
The other licenses make no such assumption. And in order to be competitive
in the corporate workspace, GPL'd programs need to be self-contained.

A good example of this problem was a program I have been developign for a
couple years called HERMES. It is a CRM/ERP platform that (still) supports
both MySQL and PostgreSQL. The homepage is at
http://hermesweb.sourceforge.net. The program is licensed under the GPL,
and I do not have the right to change that since others have contributed
code. The problem is that at the moment, the program is NOT self-contained,
so any extensions, new interfaces, etc. must also be GPL'd. This severely
limits the community that can find the program useful. The solution is to
add a set of basic interfaces which will allow non-GPL'd programs to talk to
the server. The current approach is to create a set of Database Level API's
(Stored Proceedures), LDAP bindings, and web services. In this way, we hope
to allow the program to become the center of a larger community.

Also, even with BSD licenses, there is a strong incentive to share code,
since it ensures that the burden of maintenance is minimized. Therefore the
BSD license is not so weak as many GPL zealots would like to think.

The resulting situation is that MySQL has some licensing and technical
issues that make it a very bad fit for enterprise use. PostgreSQL is both
more free (in that closed source programs can CONNECT to it) and technically
ahead of MySQL. It is also more rugged and performs better under real
circumstances. For this reason, I cannot think of a company (aside from web
hosting services) choosing MySQL over PostgreSQL.

Web hosting services are a special exception, and I think that we could
provide better tools for managing hosted accounts.

Best WIshes,
Chris Travers

[sNip]
>> The big question is this: Has the GPL been violated by MySQL?
>
> The MySQL AB interpretation that any use of their software under the
> GPL inherits to mandating that your software be licensed under the GPL
> certainly seems controversial.

Whether or not their interpretation is correct is less of a concern to
me than the fact that they've interpreted it in this way. The reason is
that if I develop a product that isn't licensed under the GPL, and it
becomes very popular, then I would be worried about having to defend myself
in front of some court or arbitrator.

Considering that this is more than a mere annoyance which can prove to
be very expensive and time consuming, I'd rather just avoid the whole mess
altogether by just avoiding using such a vendor's product altogether.

Of course I'll attempt to get an official response from the legal
department of such a company before jumping to any conclusions. In the
case of MySQL, if I wanted to develop a project that was not open source
and didn't comply with the GPL, I'd send a letter (or eMail) to MySQL and
ask for clarity on what my obligations would be with regards to their
licensing and my product (and would also include a general outline of how
my product will use MySQL). If I don't like the obligations, then I'll
just not use their product (unless they're willing to make an exception for
me), but in the end I will require a written answer be sent through the
mail, complete with signatures since it's extremely easy to create doubt in
the courts around the authenticity of an eMail when you have the right
experts on your side (such as people like me).

> <http://slashdot.org/interviews/00/05/01/1052216.shtml>
>
> In that interview, the indication is that by separating components
> into "client" and "server" bits, using CORBA, the GPL can be
> circumvented because the client and server aren't "linked." Which is
> the opposite of what MySQL AB is telling people.
>
> The MySQL AB strategy doesn't seem to involve the "client-vs-server"
> issue. Arguing that your client must be GPL-licensed because the
> server is wouldn't fly terribly far. Instead, they only provide
> _client_ software in GPL-licensed form, as _that_ would "taint" the
> software you might link to it such that it would have to be
> GPL-licensed.

It's all very complicated.

> <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=sapdb-general&m=106045880005921&w=2>
>
> What is very interesting is that they oppose attempts to circumvent
> this by someone prepared to write their own client. (The discussion
> came up when SAP-DB users were distressed that they would no longer be
> able to get a LGPL-licensed client library, and were discussing the
> possibility of writing their own...)
>
> "In this case, I would suspect that the intent of your middleware is
> what would matter most in a court case. If the middleware appears to
> mostly be in place to circumvent licensing restrictions, then it (I
> believe) would not circumvent the license. If the middleware is an
> abstraction layer that simply allows for convenient access to a
> variety of different data sources, then the license might be
> circumvented." -- Zak Greant <zak(at)mysql(dot)com>

Yikes! That just hits me as rather vague. Perhaps I need to look at
it more closely and think it through when my daughter's not watching the
Teletubbies. =D

> What is also very interesting is that many/most of the uses of "client
> libraries" get embedded into PHP/Perl/Python modules, which leads to a
> mishmash of licenses that may (as with PHP) make redistribution of the
> client libraries nonpermissible.
>
> Long and short... No, I don't see that the GPL has been "violated."
>
> But if the GPL is intended as a 'protector/encourager of free
> software,' their use of it seems to me to be about as distant from
> that _intent_ as possible.

Keep in mind that (at least in Canada) contractual agreements are only
valid when an aspect called "consideration" exists, which means that both
parties benefit in some way (which must not be grossly unfair to one side).

With all this mish-mash of various licenses, I wonder how
"consideration" would fit in to it all. My feeling is that a court would
likely be considering this (along with many other factors) when examining
the bigger picture of intent in order to determine if there really was any
damage done to all parties involved. Certainly one important aspect of
such a decision would be to understand what the various license owners knew
about how the industry works at present, which would probably keep the
lawyers busy for months if not years since most are non-technical.

DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer so I'm just going by assumptions based on
what I've learned about the law as a layperson over the years (and from
watching The People's Court).

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

In the last exciting episode, Randolf Richardson <rr(at)8x(dot)ca> wrote:
> Of course I'll attempt to get an official response from the
> legal department of such a company before jumping to any
> conclusions. In the case of MySQL, if I wanted to develop a project
> that was not open source and didn't comply with the GPL, I'd send a
> letter (or eMail) to MySQL and ask for clarity on what my
> obligations would be with regards to their licensing and my product
> (and would also include a general outline of how my product will use
> MySQL).

I'm reasonably sure that their answer would point you to the "brief
description," namely:

"This is our licensing policy in brief: Our software is 100% GPL,
and if yours is also 100% GPL (or OSI compliant), then you never
have to pay us for the licences. In all other instances, you are
better served by our commercial licence."

Their "licensing page" says it quite explicitly:

"To anyone in doubt, we recommend the commercial licence. It is
never wrong."

Which gives the pretty clear underlying message:

It's not really "open source" or "free software;" to anyone in doubt,
reality is that it's traditionally-licensed commercial software, at
several hundred dollars a pop.

I can't see them being particularly interested in giving explanations
that would lead to people _not_ sending in a cheque...

>> <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=sapdb-general&m=106045880005921&w=2>
>
> Yikes! That just hits me as rather vague. Perhaps I need to
> look at it more closely and think it through when my daughter's not
> watching the Teletubbies. =D

It was a pretty stunning claim to see, yes, indeed...

> Keep in mind that (at least in Canada) contractual agreements
> are only valid when an aspect called "consideration" exists, which
> means that both parties benefit in some way (which must not be
> grossly unfair to one side).

In the US, I believe it is common for contracts to have a clause
reading something like "with the exchange of one dollar plus other
valuable consideration."

I don't see it being a big problem to consider that there is some kind
of benefit to both sides in the use of free software.

- The use of the software is presumably somewhat valuable to the
users;

- If the producers of the software do not receive an express "value,"
the fact that they offered it freely for use would make it seem very
peculiar for them to complain of abuse.

> With all this mish-mash of various licenses, I wonder how
> "consideration" would fit in to it all. My feeling is that a court
> would likely be considering this (along with many other factors)
> when examining the bigger picture of intent in order to determine if
> there really was any damage done to all parties involved. Certainly
> one important aspect of such a decision would be to understand what
> the various license owners knew about how the industry works at
> present, which would probably keep the lawyers busy for months if
> not years since most are non-technical.

In the case of the "M guys," it isn't likely to be Canadian law that
would be relevant, in that the company is based in Sweden.

In the case of PostgreSQL, the lack of a "legal team" would suggest
that the 'relevant jurisdiction' for any legal conflict would likely
be established by whomever started a case...

> DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer so I'm just going by assumptions based
> on what I've learned about the law as a layperson over the years
> (and from watching The People's Court).

Good 'ol Judge Wapnner... :-)

Of course, he's expressing a parody of US law, which, in a number of
ways, is conspicuously different from Canadian law, just as the
respective political processes are rather different. (Canada, by use
of low-tech voting processes, seems to have a vastly more robust
electoral process due to the absence of such problems as "hanging
chad." On the other hand, prime ministers can behave as near
dictators during their tenures, absent of the US "checks and
balances"...)

And in the post-OJ era, it is pretty evident that a vital component is
that he who has the most expensive team of lawyers and/or lobbyists
will substantially influence the process. This month, we're seeing
the "entertainment" of what's going on with SCO and Michael Jackson,
and it is evident that there is _massive_ perversity going on in both
cases, irrespective of the factual merits of the cases. Whether MJ's
"Truly Bad" or not, he's pretty loopy.

And the recent threats against BSD projects demonstrates that NO free
software project can consider itself safe from legal attack.

If the Debian project had decided to drop PostgreSQL due to "paranoid
readings" of its license, that might be pooh-poohed as the ravings of
GPL fans. It is most interesting when it's the OpenBSD guys that turn
up the paranoid ones this week...
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'cbbrowne.com';
http://www3.sympatico.ca/cbbrowne/languages.html
Oh, boy, virtual memory! Now I'm gonna make myself a really *big*
RAMdisk!

>>>>> "Chris" == Chris Travers <chris(at)travelamericas(dot)com> writes:

Chris> The resulting situation is that MySQL has some licensing and
Chris> technical issues that make it a very bad fit for enterprise
Chris> use. PostgreSQL is both more free (in that closed source
Chris> programs can CONNECT to it) and technically ahead of MySQL. It
Chris> is also more rugged and performs better under real
Chris> circumstances. For this reason, I cannot think of a company
Chris> (aside from web hosting services) choosing MySQL over
Chris> PostgreSQL.

The biggest advantage MySQL still has over PostgreSQL is the same
advantage Microsoft has over Unix - entrenchment, both in
software and mindshare.

The marketplace often does the right thing, but when one "was right"
thing dominates the market, the "new right" thing rarely has an easy
time.

--
Randal L. Schwartz - Stonehenge Consulting Services, Inc. - +1 503 777 0095
<merlyn(at)stonehenge(dot)com> <URL:http://www.stonehenge.com/merlyn/>
Perl/Unix/security consulting, Technical writing, Comedy, etc. etc.
See PerlTraining.Stonehenge.com for onsite and open-enrollment Perl training!

"Randal L. Schwartz" <merlyn(at)stonehenge(dot)com> Wrote:
>
> The biggest advantage MySQL still has over PostgreSQL is the same
> advantage Microsoft has over Unix - entrenchment, both in
> software and mindshare.

There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
expressed interest, so I am not sure.

FWIW, here is what I have in mind:
A PostgreSQL database with hooks into the pg_hba.conf so that new user
accounts can be created, along with databases, etc. and all permissions
properly managed. Whether the pg_hba should be parsed and treated as an
external table using PL/PerlU or whether it should be recreated on demand is
a question I am still considering (pro's and cons of doing things either
way). Obviously this would not have a wide audience, but it would go a LONG
way towards challenging both MS SQL and MySQL in the web hosting space.

Another opportunity here is helping port "legacy" MySQL applications to
PostgreSQL, ensuring demand for the RDBMS continues to grow.

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

[sNip]
> The biggest advantage MySQL still has over PostgreSQL is the same
> advantage Microsoft has over Unix - entrenchment, both in
> software and mindshare.

Ah yes, but in Microsoft's case many people are hate them because
there is a perception that their products are the only choice.

At least with MySQL most users are generally happy with it, so the
situation, although very similar, will be an even more difficult battle in
this database world because there is a general consensus among many Windows
OS users to move to something else (be it Linux-based or not) as long as it
doesn't prevent them from doing all the things they need to do with their
computer on a daily basis.

SQL standards are certainly a move in the right direction with regards
to preventing the same drastic situation Microsoft has created from
occurring, but since this isn't 100% possible at this time it should at
least be a goal that's promoted throughout the community so as to ensure an
interoperable future -- those who resist it can be questioned about their
motives since it will obviously result in preventing compatibility which
would make it more difficult for users to switch between RDBMSes.

> The marketplace often does the right thing, but when one "was right"
> thing dominates the market, the "new right" thing rarely has an easy
> time.

The marketplace "used to" do the right thing. Now the vast majority
of decision makers are impressed by fancy looking marketing campaigns and
stupidly believe everything that's published by well-known brand names,
even when no brand name loyalty exists. The worst problem with regards to
this is that decisions are often made based on "what the majority of other
people are supposedly doing" rather than "what actually best fits the needs
of the project."

--
Randolf Richardson - rr(at)8x(dot)ca
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada

Please do not eMail me directly when responding
to my postings in the newsgroups.

On Sat, 2003-11-29 at 04:26, Randolf Richardson wrote:
...
> Keep in mind that (at least in Canada) contractual agreements are only
> valid when an aspect called "consideration" exists, which means that both
> parties benefit in some way (which must not be grossly unfair to one side).
>
> With all this mish-mash of various licenses, I wonder how
> "consideration" would fit in to it all.

Consideration is a concept in contract law. It has no relevance to
licences, which are NOT contracts.

The essence of a contract is that each party gives something (the
consideration) to the other. A licence is one-sided. (However, a
licence may itself be the consideration, as when you pay for commercial
software.)

--
Oliver Elphick Oliver(dot)Elphick(at)lfix(dot)co(dot)uk
Isle of Wight, UK http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839 932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
========================================
"But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord
and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and
for ever. Amen." II Peter 3:18

There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely

>within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
>managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
>While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
>a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
>currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
>expressed interest, so I am not sure.
>
>
>
Ahh just run different instances for each customer.

>FWIW, here is what I have in mind:
>A PostgreSQL database with hooks into the pg_hba.conf so that new user
>accounts can be created, along with databases, etc. and all permissions
>properly managed. Whether the pg_hba should be parsed and treated as an
>external table using PL/PerlU
>
I would use pl/c because you won't have the external perl requirement.

>or whether it should be recreated on demand is
>a question I am still considering (pro's and cons of doing things either
>way). Obviously this would not have a wide audience, but it would go a LONG
>way towards challenging both MS SQL and MySQL in the web hosting space.
>
>Another opportunity here is helping port "legacy" MySQL applications to
>PostgreSQL, ensuring demand for the RDBMS continues to grow.
>
>Best Wishes,
>Chris Travers
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org
>
>

--
Command Prompt, Inc., home of Mammoth PostgreSQL - S/ODBC and S/JDBC
Postgresql support, programming shared hosting and dedicated hosting.
+1-503-222-2783 - jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com - http://www.commandprompt.com
Editor-N-Chief - PostgreSQl.Org - http://www.postgresql.org

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
>
> >within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
> >managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
> >While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
> >a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
> >currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
> >expressed interest, so I am not sure.
> >
> >
> >
> Ahh just run different instances for each customer.

This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it? A fairly low spec machine
with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database
for their blogs?

My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely
connect to their mysql server from home. If running sixty instances of
PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to
mention a whole lot of RAM?

I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say
"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.

Hiya,

As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and MySQL
hosting to our customers. We also offer shell access which simplifies
things a little. I'm a little confused as to why people find having
auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem? We never use the same
passwords or pam for our DBs either, since it offers a little more
security should one or the other be compromised. If you use a tool like
webmin, it not really any more complicated. Anyone who complains about
it being "too hard" to offer PG as a shared hosting option just hasn't
investigated the possibility.

In my experience, many ISPs and hosts don't offer it because they
beleive the ROI (time, learning, extra maintenance, patching,
updates,etc) will not good.

Regards

Tony.

Craig O'Shannessy wrote:

>On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>
>
>>There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
>>
>>
>>
>>>within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
>>>managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
>>>While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
>>>a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
>>>currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
>>>expressed interest, so I am not sure.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>Ahh just run different instances for each customer.
>>
>>
>
>This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it? A fairly low spec machine
>with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database
>for their blogs?
>
>My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely
>connect to their mysql server from home. If running sixty instances of
>PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to
>mention a whole lot of RAM?
>
>I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say
>"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
>
>
>---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>
>

>
> I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just
> say
> "too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
>

I think we may translate 'too hard' into 'I'm too lazy to learn
something different and provide better
service to my customers'. Or, in the interests of simplicity, 'I'm too
dumb'.

--------------------

Andrew Rawnsley
President
The Ravensfield Digital Resource Group, Ltd.
(740) 587-0114
www.ravensfield.com

I'd agree that this is probably laziness, or to be fairer, a ROI issue,
and again comes down to MySql having more mindshare.

I was mainly saying that the statement "Ahh just run different instances
for each customer." doesn't sit very well with me, and I doubt it would
for any ISP.

I can't see much problem with pg_hba.conf, it would make the installation
automation a bit more "hacky" probably, because you'd probably write
shell/sed/awk scripts to modify the pg_hba.conf, and have to SIGHUP
postmaster. It'd also makes it a bit hard to query the information in
said file from an automated website admin program, but doesn't seem like a
biggie.

I wasn't meaning to imply that *I* thought it was "too hard", just what I
got told by my ISP. They could have meant many kinds of "hard", from "too
little time, too much to do" through to "I'm not so bright and the
database contractors too expensive".

Craig.

On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Unihost Web Hosting wrote:

> Hiya,
>
> As I've mentioned before, we happilly run and offer PostgreSQL and MySQL
> hosting to our customers. We also offer shell access which simplifies
> things a little. I'm a little confused as to why people find having
> auth control from pg_hba.conf a problem? We never use the same
> passwords or pam for our DBs either, since it offers a little more
> security should one or the other be compromised. If you use a tool like
> webmin, it not really any more complicated. Anyone who complains about
> it being "too hard" to offer PG as a shared hosting option just hasn't
> investigated the possibility.
>
> In my experience, many ISPs and hosts don't offer it because they
> beleive the ROI (time, learning, extra maintenance, patching,
> updates,etc) will not good.
>
> Regards
>
> Tony.
>
> Craig O'Shannessy wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 30 Nov 2003, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>There is another thing too-- MySQL manages connection permissions entirely
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>within the RDBMS, while PostgreSQL relies on the pg_hba.conf. This makes
> >>>managing a database server in a shared hosting environment a bit harder.
> >>>While I appreciate the PostgreSQL way of doing things, I realize that it is
> >>>a bit harder to make work for the average web hosting provider. I am
> >>>currently looking at the possibility of building a solution, but no one has
> >>>expressed interest, so I am not sure.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>Ahh just run different instances for each customer.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >This wouldn't really work for a ISP would it? A fairly low spec machine
> >with a few hundred low-hit websites, maybe 60 of them wanting a database
> >for their blogs?
> >
> >My ISP runs mysql, I don't get shell access :((, but I can remotely
> >connect to their mysql server from home. If running sixty instances of
> >PostgreSQL, wouldn't you have to have 60 different port numbers, not to
> >mention a whole lot of RAM?
> >
> >I've asked them to put up PostgreSQL as an alternative, but they just say
> >"too hard" and don't want to talk about it.
> >
> >
> >---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> >TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
> >
> >
>

> [sNip]
> >> In summary, you could be charging them for some very expensive courier
> >> services, if for which they don't pay then you won't deliver. =)
> >
> > Of course a competitor could purchase a copy or get it from a customer
> > and set up shop right away selling it too.
>
> Ah, so even the GPL has a few loop holes! =D

I don't think that is a loophole I think that is the whole point of it.

rg

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Saturday 29 November 2003 01:27 pm, Randolf Richardson wrote:
> [sNip]
>
> > The biggest advantage MySQL still has over PostgreSQL is the same
> > advantage Microsoft has over Unix - entrenchment, both in
> > software and mindshare.
>
> Ah yes, but in Microsoft's case many people are hate them because
> there is a perception that their products are the only choice.
>
> At least with MySQL most users are generally happy with it, so the
> situation, although very similar, will be an even more difficult battle in
> this database world because there is a general consensus among many Windows
> OS users to move to something else (be it Linux-based or not) as long as it
> doesn't prevent them from doing all the things they need to do with their
> computer on a daily basis.
>
> SQL standards are certainly a move in the right direction with regards
> to preventing the same drastic situation Microsoft has created from
> occurring, but since this isn't 100% possible at this time it should at
> least be a goal that's promoted throughout the community so as to ensure an
> interoperable future -- those who resist it can be questioned about their
> motives since it will obviously result in preventing compatibility which
> would make it more difficult for users to switch between RDBMSes.
>
> > The marketplace often does the right thing, but when one "was right"
> > thing dominates the market, the "new right" thing rarely has an easy
> > time.
>
> The marketplace "used to" do the right thing. Now the vast majority
> of decision makers are impressed by fancy looking marketing campaigns and
> stupidly believe everything that's published by well-known brand names,
> even when no brand name loyalty exists. The worst problem with regards to
> this is that decisions are often made based on "what the majority of other
> people are supposedly doing" rather than "what actually best fits the needs
> of the project."

Actually what I saw a lot is that the decision is made by middle to upper
management. In order to avoid being blamed for "wrong decision" a lot of thos
decision makers simply stick to the market leaders. If the stuff then doesn't
work, their boss will always accept the excuse "but it's the market leader".
Therefor the decisionmakers job is safe.

UC

- --
Open Source Solutions 4U, LLC 2570 Fleetwood Drive
Phone: +1 650 872 2425 San Bruno, CA 94066
Cell: +1 650 302 2405 United States
Fax: +1 650 872 2417
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/zBm9jqGXBvRToM4RAhWlAJ0brKdZc1Cg20fRnDDpom1zkCMIwgCfbQGQ
O7tQ1exVXLHZKARBf1gTwVA=
=ed57
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:

> On Saturday 29 November 2003 01:27 pm, Randolf Richardson wrote:
>>
>> The marketplace "used to" do the right thing. Now the vast majority
>>of decision makers are impressed by fancy looking marketing campaigns and
>>stupidly believe everything that's published by well-known brand names,
>>even when no brand name loyalty exists. The worst problem with regards to
>>this is that decisions are often made based on "what the majority of other
>>people are supposedly doing" rather than "what actually best fits the needs
>>of the project."
>
> Actually what I saw a lot is that the decision is made by middle to upper
> management. In order to avoid being blamed for "wrong decision" a lot of thos
> decision makers simply stick to the market leaders. If the stuff then doesn't
> work, their boss will always accept the excuse "but it's the market leader".
> Therefor the decisionmakers job is safe.

It's not an entirely irrational response either. The supply of labor
that has sufficient knowledge to support the better, but less well
known technology is more restricted, less commoditized, and therefore
pricier. Additionally, the risk associated with a product line which
is not a market leader assumes a possibility of incurring large
switching costs in the event that the product line fails. The benefits
of the superior niche technology have to outweigh those risks. Some
firms will take the risk, others won't. Over the long term, if the
superior technology + small market share proponents are correct, those
firms that take the risk will be rewarded and those that don't,
running inefficient legacy systems will be punished for their
less-than-stellar productivity. But it could be that taking the risk
was unwarranted, and those firms that did will be punished for
choosing an arcane, unsupportable technology...

In other words, I'm still waiting for an office suite for my Amiga...

;-)

Mike Mascari
mascarm(at)mascari(dot)com

Uwe C. Schroeder wrote:

>Actually what I saw a lot is that the decision is made by middle to upper
>management. In order to avoid being blamed for "wrong decision" a lot of thos
>decision makers simply stick to the market leaders. If the stuff then doesn't
>work, their boss will always accept the excuse "but it's the market leader".
>Therefor the decisionmakers job is safe.
>
>
In the Real World (TM) things are far more sinister than this. Consider
the life of this middle management dude. He has "advice" being shoved
down his throat by people who have no idea how to do his job. Even if
he does the Right Thing (TM) and it's a blazing success, politics rules
says he has lost as the perception is that he is not a team player. He
will soon be out of a job - UNDER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES.

I've actually witnessed this happen more than once - successful product,
incredible achievement yet unpopular decisions and CTO/Director and
management quietly disappear.

unsubscribe

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body>
Christopher Browne wrote:
<blockquote cite="midm3k75jcmbq(dot)fsf(at)wolfe(dot)cbbrowne(dot)com" type="cite">
<pre wrap="">In the last exciting episode, Randolf Richardson <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:rr(at)8x(dot)ca">&lt;rr(at)8x(dot)ca&gt;</a> wrote:
</pre>
<blockquote type="cite">
<pre wrap=""> Of course I'll attempt to get an official response from the
legal department of such a company before jumping to any
conclusions. In the case of MySQL, if I wanted to develop a project
that was not open source and didn't comply with the GPL, I'd send a
letter (or eMail) to MySQL and ask for clarity on what my
obligations would be with regards to their licensing and my product
(and would also include a general outline of how my product will use
MySQL).
</pre>
</blockquote>
<pre wrap=""><!---->
I'm reasonably sure that their answer would point you to the "brief
description," namely:

"This is our licensing policy in brief: Our software is 100% GPL,
and if yours is also 100% GPL (or OSI compliant), then you never
have to pay us for the licences. In all other instances, you are
better served by our commercial licence."

Their "licensing page" says it quite explicitly:

"To anyone in doubt, we recommend the commercial licence. It is
never wrong."

Which gives the pretty clear underlying message:

It's not really "open source" or "free software;" to anyone in doubt,
reality is that it's traditionally-licensed commercial software, at
several hundred dollars a pop.

I can't see them being particularly interested in giving explanations
that would lead to people _not_ sending in a cheque...</pre>
</blockquote>
A few quotes with links:<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html">http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing-examples.html</a><br>
<br>
&lt;quote&gt;You need a license if you sell a product designed
specifically for use with
MySQL or that requires the MySQL server to function at all. This is
true
whether or not you provide MySQL for your client as part of your
product
distribution.<tt>&lt;/quote&gt;</tt><br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-09/msg01400.php">http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-09/msg01400.php</a><br>
<br>
<tt>&lt;guote&gt;"Your PHP app that requires MySQL, if distributed,
will either have to be GPL (or another OSI-approved and MySQL-approved
open source licence ) or you will need a commercial licence of MySQL." </tt><br>
<br>
<tt>Sometimes people say "But I cannot open source my application!" and
they may have valid reasons for this. Our response is then: "If you
have a valid reason not to be open source, wouldn't that same reasoning
apply to us?".</tt><br>
<br>
<tt>This goes to the core of MySQL AB's business idea of Quid pro Quo -
if you are open source, we are open source - if you are closed source,
we are commercial.&lt;/quote&gt;<br>
<br>
Doesn't leave open much questions imho.<br>
<br>
Kaarel<br>
</tt>
</body>
</html>