On the Nature of MySQL Closed Extensions

Matt Raykowski pointed out a couple of notes about the recent announcement by Oracle that it would begin supplying closed source extensions to MySQL, which it acquired when it bought Sun Microsystems (such as this one from Simon Phipps and this one from Monty Widenius)

I can’t say that the move surprised me, but I’ve been busy teaching this week and am newly obsessed with De Rerum Natura by Lucretius, which was rescued from obscurity by Poggio the Florentine when he found a copy at a Benedictine Abbey in Fulda, where I happen to be.

I believe I have tracked down that abbey, so I am now free to once again bore my three readers by discussing the open core business model.

First, when it comes to Oracle, one must surely realize that they are a commercial software company and their customers consist of people both used to and comfortable with buying proprietary code. I don’t really see this move as “open core” since Oracle has never, to my knowledge, described itself as an open source company. Instead, they join the ranks of Microsoft, Google and Apple who sell proprietary products based on open source code. There is no market confusion here, as the vast majority of companies who buy these products realize that they are buying commercial software.

I think it is more interesting to examine the role of commercially licensed software within the realm of an open source business.

To use MySQL AB as an example, I had no problem with the company both providing MySQL code under an open license as well as selling it under a proprietary license so it could be imbedded into commercial products. As long as all the bits are the same, I think it is a great way to fund open source development. We offer the same model with our “Powered by OpenNMS” program.

The problem arises when features are withheld from the “open” version. One of the powerful aspects of open source software is that the community of users and developers around it allow it to develop rapidly. OpenNMS is able to compete with products that have yearly R&D budgets in the tens of millions, mainly because features can advance rapidly due to a large, disparate development community.

This “withholding of features” is a key part of the open core model. It doesn’t work, and it is why open core companies are running away from it as fast as they can. Take Hyperic for example. Just recently on their messaging boards came a post asking about the next community release, since the “enterprise” release has been out for awhile now. Because the software has this separation, someone has to make the decision on how much of it to release as open. Thus, the decision on how to manage, test, distribute and improve the code has been removed from the community and placed in the hands of the vendor. The code is hidden until the vendor decides to release it, which all but removes the advantage of having it as open source in the first place.

Again, to contrast that to OpenNMS, anyone with access to the Internet can get to our git repository and see the latest and greatest code whenever they want. If they want to run our next stable release before its time, they can download testing (the next point release), unstable (the next major release) or snapshot (the raw, unrefined, latest code) which are built nightly.

The second major issue when talking about the role of commercial software within an open source business is the topic of copyright assignment. MySQL required that developers contributing code assign the copyright to them. Only the copyright holder can set the terms of the license, so Oracle would not be able to create a proprietary version of the MySQL database without it.

At OpenNMS, the discussion was lengthy when we were deciding on a copyright assignment strategy. We had been stung by the fact that a company had taken our code and turned it into a commercial product in violation of the license, and when we pursued legal action, that company’s response was that if they were using the OpenNMS code, it was from an earlier version to which we did not own the copyright. Now that The OpenNMS Group holds the entire copyright to OpenNMS, it makes such issues easier to defend.

We adopted, at the suggestion of DJ Gregor, the Sun contributors agreement, in which the copyright is assigned to the project but the contributor also maintains copyright.

There is one huge positive to this and one minor negative.

The positive is that the contributor retains ownership of their work. Think about it – supposed you wrote some part of MySQL and assigned the copyright to MySQL AB. Now you want to improve that code and submit it to another project. Since MySQL owns the copyright to the original work, you are bound by whatever license under which it is published. If it was published under the GPLv2, you wouldn’t be able to submit it to a project licensed under GPLv3 without express permission from MySQL. You don’t own your own work.

In the case of “dual copyright”, you still maintain ownership and you can license it any way you want.

The negative is that dual copyright may not be enforceable around the world, and it has not, to my knowledge, been tested in court. But this was the same FUD spread about the GPL in the beginning, and numerous court challenges have upheld the license’s validity. I am confident that should this ever be tested in court, it too will be found valid (just as if, say, William Gibson and Bruce Sterling decided to write a book together, they could each share in the ownership of the final product).

Publishing all the bits under an open source license (even if they are also sold commercially) and having a permissive contributors agreement that favors the developer are key to being successful as an open source business.

I’m afraid I have little sympathy for the developers of MySQL. They took their 40 pieces of silver when they sold themselves to Sun for US$1 billion. At that valuation, they had a ton of options, including an IPO, but somewhere along the way they made decisions that eventually led to Oracle owning the project.

I think this is more a lesson in foresight versus some strange and unexpected strategy by Oracle.

Comments are closed.