Monty Widenius

I hate switching backup software, and with your current license, you become a single point of failure--will you be supporting this thing in 10 years when I need to back my FireflyBSD 128-bit RiscV machine up to the walmart cloud (or whatever random os/hardware/cloud is common in a decade)? If this were BSL licensed, the community could fork it if that became an issue: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2016/08/applying-business-source-licens… I'm curious to see whether any BSL software manages to build a third party dev community (inclusion in debian non-free, third party patches and bug reports, etc) While I have your attention: It'd be great to measure how many bytes the solutions read and write, as well as I/O counts. There are tools for this in Linux, and probably MacOS. Alternatively, network bandwidth would be a good proxy for these measurements.

Ok, here is a point-by-point on Monty's list of items that drizzle is supposed to be solving: (list and interesting article about the 'fork' here: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/07/what-if.html) * It opens up MySQL development for the community; You no longer have to wait years to get your patches and resonable extensions into the server. This is not a reason to fork a project, it is an excellent reason to review the processes at MySQL. * Critical bugs that have existed for years can finally get fixed as the development is no longer constrained by unrealistic release schedules that put artificial constraints on things that can be fixed. See above, with a cherry on top. * Drizzle will put some MySQL server differentiation on a true test; A bit like Fedora does to RedHat. I don't quite understand this point, Fedora is a community supported os targeted at personal users, whereas RedHat, is geared towards businesses using it commercially. Do I interpret this now to mean that either drizzle or mysql will be targeted to individuals (unlikely) or does that mean that mysql is trying to enlist the community with drizzle and will eventually take the best developments from drizzle and backport them to MySQL ? * Drizzle has created new excitement in the MySQL developer community; A lot of people seem to be very enthusiastic to work on it in a true community- oriented manner. That could…

Vaguely similar prior art, similar in motivation, similarly flawed, IMO: Monty's Business Source license. http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2016/08/applying-business-source-licens… That received a lot of criticism from its community as well, but also from existing MariaDB Corp customers. I know because I worked for one at the time that was seriously considering stopping the level of collaboration we had. We were quite sad about that at the time and decided to not go that far but instead stopped giving additional funding to the extensions that we were interested in.

Sun didn't become Oracle, Oracle purchased Sun, so it wasn't Oracle who paid Monty. When Monty sold MySQL to Sun he believed them to be a good fit for the project, and they would keep it going in the spirit he hoped for. He could never have foreseen it would be sold to Oracle. And yes, it has always been dual-licensed, but as Monty himself says: "The basic idea for our dual-licensing was this: if you bought a license then we waived the GPL restriction that you have to redistribute your code as GPL. You could change, modify, extend, distribute, and redistribute the copy in any way you wanted (but of course not change the license of the MySQL code). The license was for any version and usage of MySQL, for now and forever." [1] [1] http://monty-says.blogspot.co.uk/2009/08/thoughts-about-dual-licensing…

I was interested to see how many of the bugs from the 5.1 release (which I haven't touched due to roundhouse slams from the bulk of the community) had been addressed, so I've had a look at the bugs in Monty's 5.1 GA blog entry - http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/11/oops-we-did-it-again-mysql-51-r… Without reviewing them in too much depth, several have been moved to closed in the bug tracker. There are still a few hairy ones sitting with later targets (6.0-beta) or sitting in triage waiting for attention, but it does look promising that several have been addressed.

This is an awesome rebuttal to what Monty posted over at: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-saving-mysql.html I'm surprised to see a company as big as Oracle willing to play ball like this, but I'm glad. MySQL is/was the gold standard for years.

I'm not convinced, this is what I read at http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/10/importance-of-license-model-of-… Most of the technology partners, where most of the innovation in the MySQL space happen nowadays, depend on being able to get licenses for MySQL so that they can combine their closed source application or closed code (like storage engines) with MySQL This is clearly a problem with GPL. The economic model of a BSD-licensed product can't be broken just not selling licenses, as everybody will continue to use the code for whatever purpose.

Blogspam: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/04/to-be-free-or-not-to-be-free.ht… And a repeat at that.

The link to this comes from his blog post on resignation: http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/02/time-to-move-on.html