Some free utilities for Java, with Hebrew support.

[nebulous99]

Several pay for the support (which is said to be excellent) and get
the non-GPL license as a bonus.

The entire original discussion (and even your attacks on my character)
were predicated on the claim someone (may have been you; definitely
wasn't me) that MySQL's whole business model revolved around selling
non-GPL licensing.

This is a drastic change in tune. If their main revenue source is
selling support, then it's the same as a load of other open source
companies and there's really no further issue here. All of this rather
smells of a ridiculously overblown tempest getting way too big for its
original teapot anyway.

Other ISV's have a dilemma - my impression is that only the minority
pay and that the majority goes for other solutions - PostgreSQL being
one of them.

What are these ISVs selling? (Note plural in place of possessive.) I
wouldn't think there'd be much of a market for a rebranded, closed-
source version of something you can get cheaper from the original
source. Then again, people will pay for bottled water and name-brand
colas when they could use tap water and no-name cola at a fraction of
the price, so ...

They definitely need the connectors to sell their main product the
database.

I thought the database engine was also open source.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Do you have some sort of a point here? Nothing (legally) stops someone
from *not upgrading*, or even from forking the old version and
creating parallel improvements in their fork.

True.

Are you volunteering ?

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Except that only a closed-source vendor can *define* a proprietary
protocol. If a protocol's latest version is always immediately
embodied in open source code, the protocol clearly cannot be
meaningfully called "proprietary" now can it?

Yes. It can.

A proprietary protocol mean that a single company controls the
protocol. They can change it whenever they want. They do not
need to supply an official specification.

Open source means that some source code is available for everyone.

No conflict between theese.

MySQL does not have a proprietary protocol, because they have no IP
barrier around it (it is not patented and their implementations are
not closed-source).

Proprietary does not require patents or closed source.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

The entire original discussion (and even your attacks on my character)
were predicated on the claim someone (may have been you; definitely
wasn't me) that MySQL's whole business model revolved around selling
non-GPL licensing.

This is a drastic change in tune. If their main revenue source is
selling support, then it's the same as a load of other open source
companies and there's really no further issue here. All of this rather
smells of a ridiculously overblown tempest getting way too big for its
original teapot anyway.

No.

This thread started because we told you that MySQL was not free for
everyone.

It is not.

But most people choose an alternative instead of paying.

What are these ISVs selling? (Note plural in place of possessive.) I
wouldn't think there'd be much of a market for a rebranded, closed-
source version of something you can get cheaper from the original
source. Then again, people will pay for bottled water and name-brand
colas when they could use tap water and no-name cola at a fraction of
the price, so ...

Anything.

From accounting systems to ORM frameworks.

Just stuff that needs to be linked with the database connector and
therefore can not live with GPL.

I thought the database engine was also open source.

It is.

You can sell open source as well.

Arne

 

[Lew]

It is.

You can sell open source as well.

Because it's "free as in speech", not "free as in beer".

Also known as "free as in a dog that has slipped its leash, that free dog".

 

[nebulous99]

Yes. It can.

No, it can't, arnehole, and stop posting pure-attack posts in response
to everything I write, and pretty much nothing else, or I will report
you to your ISP for abuse.

A proprietary protocol mean that a single company controls the
protocol. They can change it whenever they want. They do not
need to supply an official specification.

Open source means that some source code is available for everyone.

Open source means that they have supplied an official specification:
the source code for a reference implementation, which is about as
exact a specification as can be.

Proprietary does not require patents or closed source.

Yes, it does. Proprietary means that they own, in some sense, a
format, protocol, or other thing. It basically equates to IP. That
requires either a copyright (and restrictively used, rather than, say,
GPL) or patents more or less by definition. With the GPL the MySQL
company owns very little, other than they have retained the power of
being the guys you have to negotiate with to license it in any way
*other* than GPL.

 

[nebulous99]

This thread started because we told you that MySQL was not free for
everyone.

But it is. It has some strings attached, but anyone who wants to can
use it without paying, subject to certain requirements. They only need
to pay if they want to avoid one of those other requirements. So they
have a choice, and one of the choices involves zero funds transferred.
Plus, being GPL, it's certainly free in the free-software sense.

Anything.

From accounting systems to ORM frameworks.

Just stuff that needs to be linked with the database connector and
therefore can not live with GPL.

This seems odd. Why are the makers of this specialized software not
either using their own, or using a completely open standard to connect
to the next layer down that is totally vendor-independent, such that
they can pick and choose what implementations to use to be compatible
with their intended licensing?

It is.

You can sell open source as well.

True enough, but it further goes against your claim that there's
anything proprietary here given that the source code for a reference
implementation is freely available to all and sundry.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

No, it can't, arnehole, and stop posting pure-attack posts in response
to everything I write, and pretty much nothing else, or I will report
you to your ISP for abuse.

Feel free to do so.

They will be rolling on the floor laughing.

Open source means that they have supplied an official specification:
the source code for a reference implementation, which is about as
exact a specification as can be.

If you were a programmer then you would know that there is a big
difference between a specification and an implementation.

Yes, it does. Proprietary means that they own, in some sense, a
format, protocol, or other thing. It basically equates to IP. That
requires either a copyright (and restrictively used, rather than, say,
GPL) or patents more or less by definition. With the GPL the MySQL
company owns very little, other than they have retained the power of
being the guys you have to negotiate with to license it in any way
*other* than GPL.

Again: you can not copyright a protocol.

MySQL owns the power to change the protocol whenever they want to.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

But it is. It has some strings attached, but anyone who wants to can
use it without paying, subject to certain requirements. They only need
to pay if they want to avoid one of those other requirements. So they
have a choice, and one of the choices involves zero funds transferred.
Plus, being GPL, it's certainly free in the free-software sense.

It is free in the free software sense.

But commercial ISV's does not consider it free.

This seems odd. Why are the makers of this specialized software not
either using their own, or using a completely open standard to connect
to the next layer down that is totally vendor-independent, such that
they can pick and choose what implementations to use to be compatible
with their intended licensing?

Because the free alternative does not exist.

True enough, but it further goes against your claim that there's
anything proprietary here given that the source code for a reference
implementation is freely available to all and sundry.

No. That is a misconception of yours.

Arne

 

[bbound]

Feel free to do so.

They will be rolling on the floor laughing.

Your ISP responds to serious complaints of spammy behavior in such a
manner? Then I will suggest to *other* ISPs that it be subjected to a
UDP.

Your repetitious attacks on me for no apparent motive save to keep
attacking me amount to spam by sheer ... repetitiveness.

If you were a programmer then you would know that there is a big
difference between a specification and an implementation.

A specification is implied by a given implementation, assuming that
implementation is conforming. It is safe to assume that the vendor's
own reference implementation qualifies, in the absence of an explicit
specification. The implicit specification is then "behave the same way
this implementation, which you can freely study, behaves".

Again: you can not copyright a protocol.

THANK YOU for finally seeing the light.

MySQL owns the power to change the protocol whenever they want to.

It's GPL software. ANYONE can make a new version with a changed
protocol whenever they want to. Any greater impact from MySQL doing so
follows solely from their marketing position and has no basis in law
or "ownership" of anything.

Also, nobody has to upgrade if they don't want to. This isn't
Microsoft software we're talking about here. Again, it's GPL, so you
can keep an old version around in source form and recompile it. You
can edit out any auto-update functionality, or anything that makes it
break if its attempts to update itself are blocked, and recompile. You
just have to share the modified source if you distribute the update-
defanged version you made in binary form. If you just use it in-house,
you needn't worry about the GPL at all.

 

[bbound]

But commercial ISV's does not consider it free.

Commercial ISVs might not see a lot of other things as free either by
your argument. You seem to be making the argument that it's only free
if it's public domain. That's a rather extreme position to be taking.

Because the free alternative does not exist.

PostgreSQL is freer (apparently); they could use it as their
underlying database engine without having to open source their
product. Apparently a lot of these ISVs *are*.

No. That is a misconception of yours.

No. I have no misconceptions and I don't take kindly to your
continuing to insult me in public fora. Shut your hole and go find
something constructive to do.

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Commercial ISVs might not see a lot of other things as free either by
your argument. You seem to be making the argument that it's only free
if it's public domain. That's a rather extreme position to be taking.

No.

BSD/Apache style licenses are very fine.

PostgreSQL is freer (apparently); they could use it as their
underlying database engine without having to open source their
product. Apparently a lot of these ISVs *are*.

PostgreSQL does not supply a MySQL JDBC driver, which is what
we are discussing.

They do provide an alternative database, but noone is arguing that.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

Your ISP responds to serious complaints of spammy behavior in such a
manner? Then I will suggest to *other* ISPs that it be subjected to a
UDP.

You seem to ignore the fact that noone that had read all your
posts can consider anything you write seriously.

The other ISP's would laugh of you as well.

THANK YOU for finally seeing the light.

So now we agree that your statement:

It's GPL software. ANYONE can make a new version with a changed
protocol whenever they want to.

Sue you can also create your own improved HTTP protocol.

And what good will that do you ?

None. Because no browsers or web sites will support it.

Anyone could create an improved MySQL protocol, but since
it will not be able to communicate to MySQL databases
there ar enot much point.

> Any greater impact from MySQL doing so
follows solely from their marketing position and has no basis in law
or "ownership" of anything.

Whatever.

The result is the same.

Also, nobody has to upgrade if they don't want to. This isn't
Microsoft software we're talking about here. Again, it's GPL, so you
can keep an old version around in source form and recompile it. You
can edit out any auto-update functionality, or anything that makes it
break if its attempts to update itself are blocked, and recompile.

You can.

But noone will want to do that.

Arne

 

[bbound]

You again!

You just argue for the sake of arguing, and to try to make me look
bad, don't you?

**** off!

No.

BSD/Apache style licenses are very fine.

That's odd. Before you said nobody wants ANY license that has ANY
restriction at all. That seems to me to leave pretty much only the
public domain.

PostgreSQL does not supply a MySQL JDBC driver, which is what
we are discussing.

It probably does supply a PostgreSQL JDBC driver however.

An ISV who is unsatisfied with MySQL for any reason, including
licensing, can simply build their software on Postgre instead. Same as
if I don't much care for Swing for some reason, I can build my
software on SWT instead.

 

[bbound]

You again!

You just argue for the sake of arguing, and to try to make me look
bad, don't you?

**** off!

You seem to ignore the fact that [insult deleted]

Liar! **** off!

Sue you can also create your own improved HTTP protocol.

And what good will that do you ?

None. Because no browsers or web sites will support it.

HTTP is a widely standardized protocol. And an open one. There's a big
difference there.

Anyone could create an improved MySQL protocol, but since
it will not be able to communicate to MySQL databases
there ar enot much point.

It'd be able to communicate with whatever it was designed to
communciate with. By your reasoning "there ar enot much point" in HTTP
either, since HTTP is also not able to communicate "to" MySQL
databases.

[snip remainder of nonsensical blather]

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

That's odd. Before you said nobody wants ANY license that has ANY
restriction at all. That seems to me to leave pretty much only the
public domain.

No.

GPL is a potential problem.

Apache/BSD and usually also LGPL is not a problem.

It probably does supply a PostgreSQL JDBC driver however.

An ISV who is unsatisfied with MySQL for any reason, including
licensing, can simply build their software on Postgre instead. Same as
if I don't much care for Swing for some reason, I can build my
software on SWT instead.

True.

And that is what is happening.

Some potential customers does not use MySQL because of the
licensing issues.

Arne

 

[=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=]

HTTP is a widely standardized protocol. And an open one. There's a big
difference there.


It'd be able to communicate with whatever it was designed to
communciate with. By your reasoning "there ar enot much point" in HTTP
either, since HTTP is also not able to communicate "to" MySQL
databases.

If the logic is to difficult for you, then I can try an explain it
more carefully:

There are a lot of point in using the HTTP protocol because
web servers and browsers support it.

There are a lot of point in using the MySQL protocol, because
MySQL server and client apps support it.

There are no point in a modified HTTP protocol and there are no
point in a modified MySQL protocol, because it will not be able
to talk to anybody.

Arne

 

[Lew]

An ISV who is unsatisfied with MySQL for any reason, including
licensing, can simply build their software on Postgre [sic] instead.

It's "Postgres" or "PostgreSQL", officially. However, many Postgres
aficionados feel that the Postgres community should be tolerant of the variant
"Postgre", even though the PG apologists feel that to be incorrect.

 

[Roedy Green]

There are a lot of point in using the HTTP protocol because
web servers and browsers support it.

The other big advantage is HTTP can tunnel through firewalls. Pretty
well anything else you cook up, unless it masquerades as HTTP, will
require special openings created in the firewalls, meaning support
hassles.

 

[Roedy Green]

It's "Postgres" or "PostgreSQL", officially. However, many Postgres

what is the etymology of the name?