db-derby-user mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From "Michael J. Segel" <mse...@segel.com>
Subject Re: [Fwd: Re: Are you happy with Derby?]
Date Fri, 28 Oct 2005 16:37:09 GMT
On Thursday 27 October 2005 23:28, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> Michael J. Segel wrote:
> > On Thursday 27 October 2005 15:19, Daniel John Debrunner wrote:
> > Sigh.
> >
> > Dan, you really need to pay more attention to what was written.
> >
> > With respect to GPL I never talked about end users.
> > Just those who license their code under GPL.
> > GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license as
> > well.
>
> I think I finally see what you are getting at, I have a hard time
> understanding your posts as you seem to avoid saying things clearly,
> instead preferring to imply things.
>
Yup. Sorry about that. 
I'm making the assumption that you're familiar with this stuff already and I 
didn't want to be accused of talking down or lecturing someone. ;-)

> I was put off track by your statement above:
>
> "GPL does allow a company to release the code under a different license
> as well."
>
Uhm, I think the only thing that I implied was that a company who releases 
software under the GPL is the contributing company. 

> Since you never specified earlier you were only talking about the
> copyright holder, I assumed 'a company' meany any company, and since you
> introduced this topic in what seemed to be an ASL/GPL post I assumed
> your were talking about re-distributing.
>

Well again, in my example, I used MySQL AB. which is of course the company and 
not the product. I thought that should be clear.

> But if you are talking about the copyright holder, then your statement
> taken by itself is misleading, at least it mislead me. (Because the GPL
> is not the mechanism that allows the copyright holder to use other
> licences, e.g. I could replace GPL with ASL in that exact sentence and
> it makes the same amount of sense).
>
> I think what you are trying to say is:
>
> - By releasing the software under the GPL, its redistribution by others
> is limited to the GPL, thus the copyright holder has the potential
> advantage of using other licences.
>
Thats true, however not exactly my point.

Releasing code under the GPL means that there is no direct commercial benefit 
to the "copyright holder" (Using your term). The "copyright holder" has 
commercial benefit from using an alternative license and selling support. 
Also under GPL, they can sell ancillary products and benefit by having a 
certain amount of market share. 

MySQL AB is a great example of this model.

Going back to what you said, there's an additional economic benefit to the 
"copyright holder".  Suppose you contribute a "fix" or "enhancement" to their 
baseline code.  You have to release that "fix/enhancement" under the GPL.
This benefits the "copyright holder" because now you've improved his product.

Using MySQL AB as an example, they can now utilize you enhancements which will 
make the product more attractive and increase the number of potential users 
of their commercial license.  While the GPL reduces the profitability of a 
company, it also reduces their risks as a start up.  This Open Source model 
has more of a symbiotic relationship than Apache's.

> I agree that is technically correct. But this mailing list is not the
> place to discuss the pros and cons of GPL and ASL.
>
> > Hypothetical situation. You figure out a way to efficiently handle SQL
> > Optimization that really reduces overhead. There is nothing for stopping
> > IBM or Oracle to come in and steal your IP and use it in their products,
> > once you put it in the public eye under Apache.
>
> Well, at least IBM's not a problem for me, since my IP is IBM's IP. :-)
> But I'm not sure either way what you say is 100% correct, but since
> neither you or I are a lawyer there's no point continuing the discussion.
>
Yeah, I know the agreement very well. ;-)

> > The wild thing is that IBM was short sighted when they released Derby
> > under Apache.
>
> That of course, is only your opinion. I don't see it that way.
>
> Dan.
Well you know what they say about Opinions... ;-)
LOL... thats because you haven't thought it out, nor has IBM.

Derby has the chance to become the MySQL and SQLServer killer.
This is in the near future. Under Apache, as a user, you have pretty much free 
reign to do as he or she pleases.  And this is why I like Derby and chose 
Derby over MySQL... ;-)

Of course when you consider that 70% of the applications that use databases, 
Derby,MySQL,Sybase, Oracle, SQLServer, DB2 and IDS all could be used.

Thats a large base.

As things progress, Java and Derby become a compelling choice because of the 
economic incentive. (ITS FREE!). So now you start to eat in to their existing 
market, or potential SMB market.  What I can say is that the SMB market is 
very important to IBM. (They've publically said that many times.) By 
releasing Derby, they have released a potential competitor.

There are a *lot* of improvements that can be made to Derby that may make it 
more of a competitor. For example. Using RAW filesystems instead of Cooked 
files.... ;-) 

So yeah. There's a lot of potential... 

But hey, what do I know? .... ;-)


-- 
Michael Segel
Principal
MSCC
(312) 952-8175

Mime
View raw message