maria-developers team mailing list archive

[Giuseppe Maxia <g.maxia@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Henrik Ingo<henrik.ingo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 3, 2009 at 2:21 PM, Arjen Lentz<arjen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>>> What Monty suggested was that it would work for Sun if we submit specific
>>>> patches under a BSD-new license.
>>>>
>>>> I realise that the http://tinyurl.com/q2ulgt patch request is now so old
>>>> that
>>>> it may be of no interest to you any longer. But if you have a request for
>>>> this
>>>> or other patches, please send them. All developers at Monty Program have
>>>> the
>>>> ability to submit their work to Sun at their own discretion, so we should
>>>> be
>>>> able to make this work on a low-overhead technician-to-technician level.
>>>
>>> Thanks for picking this up. I just wanted to confirm this is true and
>>> we are happy to cooperate.
>>
>>
>> It's how it works with Drizzle.
>> However, I've blogged and otherwise written and spoken about this before, it
>> does not make me particularly happy.
>>
>> Here's the layout:
>>  - the GPL parts of the code are owned by Sun.
>>  - BSD can be incorporated non-OSS derivatives.
>>
>> And the consequenec of this is that Sun is able to perpetuate the dual
>> licensing model - a model which perhaps worked once upon a type and did
>> well, but which is definitely outdated, and only abused by greedy
>> salespeople.
>> By agreeing to this arrangement, contributors ensure that Sun is able to
>> continue that.
>> Do you want that?
>>
>> "yes" might be a valid choice, on the basis that it might be more important
>> to get the changes upstream.
>
> For now, we will do this for all changes we'd like to get merged
> upstream, but not everything we do. Basically this amounts to "all bug
> fixes".
>
> You're absolutely right that it doesn't make sense that something our
> company employees spent hundreds of hours producing, would just be
> given for free to Sun to support their business of selling essentially
> proprietary MySQL licensees. We are open to talking with Sun on how to
> do that too, but for now we don't see a point in just giving it away.

Why it's perfectly OK that MariaDB gets MySQL bugfixes for free and
instead it's a rip off if MySQL gets MariaDB bug fixes?

MariaDB requires the same kind of legal grants that Sun asks, and the
FAQ even states "The MCA is based on Sun's Contributor Agreement. We
think it is one of the best contributor agreements around! "
http://askmonty.org/wiki/index.php/MCA_FAQ

So, where is the catch? If Sun asks for the SCA, it's "greedy
salesmen". If MariaDB asks the same thing, it's "protecting the
community".

Giuseppe