Comments on: Ingres screws up their open source license, again! http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/ Musings on reporting, OLAP, ETL, open source Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:03:10 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Kenn http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/#comment-18171 Kenn Wed, 03 Jan 2007 21:19:50 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/?p=125#comment-18171 FUD or no FUD? The project I am working on looked at ISVing Ingres. We had some technical issues and the licensing issue meant we chose PostgreSQL. I was heavily into Ingres in the past and I really wanted to use it for the project. I was biased and wasted too much time on it. I really believe this was the last chance for Ingres and its gone. Now I have PostgreSQL, I believe it has filled a gap left by its parent. FUD or no FUD?

The project I am working on looked at ISVing Ingres. We had some technical issues and the licensing issue meant we chose PostgreSQL.

I was heavily into Ingres in the past and I really wanted to use it for the project. I was biased and wasted too much time on it. I really believe this was the last chance for Ingres and its gone.

Now I have PostgreSQL, I believe it has filled a gap left by its parent.

]]> By: Nicholas Goodman http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/#comment-83 Nicholas Goodman Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:55:18 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/?p=125#comment-83 First, and perhaps most importantly, please please please do not consider this an "article." It's a blog. From my upper right hand corner "Observations, reviews, analysis." I make no assertions that I'm a journalist... I have my opinions and I'm happy to share them. I'm also happy to have discussions about the content so thank you for commenting! It has now become, a "two sided" picture! :) "You appeared not to have considered those alternatives." Ummm... that's exactly what the UPDATE at the top of the page was about. You see, Ingres WAS going to be entirely GPL (including the JDBC and API access points) much the same that MySQL has. Using the JDBC client that is GPL would definitely be considered linking or embedding (check out MySQL licensing on this matter). Based on the community response (refer to Ingres website) Ingres is considering doing exactly what you suggest to ensure it doesn't trigger the GPL (making JDBC LGPL or similar). re: FUD. Not my desire... the market will sort out what the Ingres adoption rate looks like. Check out this article and what the CTO says about how many "new customers" they've acquired: http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/story/0,10801,109166,00.html re: GPL. GPL is grand for many applications (yes, even some business applications). However, my point is that the market that Ingres will ultimately be used in (ISV/OEMs) won't accept a viral GPL. If Ingres wanted to be another MySQL (simple, solid DB) GPL might be a suitable choice. Ganesh... I mean this honestly... Ingres is AWESOME. It's a technically sound database with GREAT enterprise features. I'm hopeful that Ingres does choose a good license (GPL DB and LGPL APIs) and learns how to build a community. I've offered to help them (I've emailed with more than 8 people at CA/Ingres), btw. They're not interested.... Ultimately, everyone is free to choose the license that suits them. Like I said... I hope I'm wrong. :) First, and perhaps most importantly, please please please do not consider this an “article.” It’s a blog. From my upper right hand corner “Observations, reviews, analysis.” I make no assertions that I’m a journalist… I have my opinions and I’m happy to share them. I’m also happy to have discussions about the content so thank you for commenting! It has now become, a “two sided” picture! :)
“You appeared not to have considered those alternatives.”

Ummm… that’s exactly what the UPDATE at the top of the page was about. You see, Ingres WAS going to be entirely GPL (including the JDBC and API access points) much the same that MySQL has. Using the JDBC client that is GPL would definitely be considered linking or embedding (check out MySQL licensing on this matter). Based on the community response (refer to Ingres website) Ingres is considering doing exactly what you suggest to ensure it doesn’t trigger the GPL (making JDBC LGPL or similar).

re: FUD. Not my desire… the market will sort out what the Ingres adoption rate looks like. Check out this article and what the CTO says about how many “new customers” they’ve acquired:
http://www.computerworld.com/softwaretopics/software/story/0,10801,109166,00.html

re: GPL. GPL is grand for many applications (yes, even some business applications). However, my point is that the market that Ingres will ultimately be used in (ISV/OEMs) won’t accept a viral GPL. If Ingres wanted to be another MySQL (simple, solid DB) GPL might be a suitable choice.

Ganesh… I mean this honestly… Ingres is AWESOME. It’s a technically sound database with GREAT enterprise features. I’m hopeful that Ingres does choose a good license (GPL DB and LGPL APIs) and learns how to build a community. I’ve offered to help them (I’ve emailed with more than 8 people at CA/Ingres), btw. They’re not interested….

Ultimately, everyone is free to choose the license that suits them. Like I said… I hope I’m wrong. :)

]]> By: Ganesh Prasad http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/#comment-82 Ganesh Prasad Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:52:45 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/?p=125#comment-82 Oh, and two words for any company that absolutely must extend the product in a proprietary way -- dual licensing. Since dual licensing is definitely on the table, Ingres Corp's decision to go GPL makes perfect sense. I'm afraid your arguments are totally unconvincing. Oh, and two words for any company that absolutely must extend the product in a proprietary way — dual licensing.

Since dual licensing is definitely on the table, Ingres Corp’s decision to go GPL makes perfect sense. I’m afraid your arguments are totally unconvincing.

]]> By: Ganesh Prasad http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/#comment-81 Ganesh Prasad Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:18:12 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/?p=125#comment-81 This seems to be a load of FUD. I can see that you don't like the GPL, but there are any number of ways in which ISVs and business partners may use Ingres that don't trigger the viral clause of the GPL. For example, if a proprietary product only connects to Ingres as a JDBC DataSource, and the manufacturer co-distributes Ingres with their product, how does that trigger the viral clause? "Embedding" is a loose term, too. There are ways to "embed" a database without making it a part of your product. You appear not to have considered those alternatives. Finally, there are "business-friendly" reasons why software should be protected by the GPL (gasp!). No one wants to contribute to a project whose fruits can be exploited in proprietary ways by a competitor. I'm sure the authors of BSD networking utilities felt really great about Microsoft blatantly porting their stuff to Windows (Decompile the versions of ftp.exe and telnet.exe on Windows NT 4.0 and see the license if you want proof). All in all, a great one-sided article, but far from a balanced picture. This seems to be a load of FUD. I can see that you don’t like the GPL, but there are any number of ways in which ISVs and business partners may use Ingres that don’t trigger the viral clause of the GPL. For example, if a proprietary product only connects to Ingres as a JDBC DataSource, and the manufacturer co-distributes Ingres with their product, how does that trigger the viral clause?

“Embedding” is a loose term, too. There are ways to “embed” a database without making it a part of your product. You appear not to have considered those alternatives.

Finally, there are “business-friendly” reasons why software should be protected by the GPL (gasp!). No one wants to contribute to a project whose fruits can be exploited in proprietary ways by a competitor. I’m sure the authors of BSD networking utilities felt really great about Microsoft blatantly porting their stuff to Windows (Decompile the versions of http://ftp.exe and telnet.exe on Windows NT 4.0 and see the license if you want proof).

All in all, a great one-sided article, but far from a balanced picture.

]]> By: Ganesh Prasad http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/2006/02/09/ingres-screws-up-their-open-source-license-again/#comment-80 Ganesh Prasad Fri, 10 Mar 2006 01:17:06 +0000 http://www.nicholasgoodman.com/bt/blog/?p=125#comment-80 This seems to be a load of FUD. I can see that you don't like the GPL, but there are any number of ways in which ISVs and business partners may use Ingres that don't trigger the viral clause of the GPL. For example, if a proprietary product only connects to Ingres as a JDBC DataSource, and the manufacturer co-distributes Ingres with their product, how does that trigger the viral clause? "Embedding" is a loose term, too. There are ways to "embed" a database without making it a part of your product. You appear not to have considered those alternatives. Finally, there are "business-friendly" reasons why software should be protected by the GPL (gasp!). No one wants to contribute to a project whose fruits can be exploited in proprietary ways by a competitor. I'm sure the authors of BSD networking utilities felt really great about Microsoft blatantly porting their stuff to Windows (Decompile the versions of ftp.exe and telnet.exe on Windows NT 4.0 and see the license if you want proof). All in all, a great one-sided article, but far from a balanced picture. This seems to be a load of FUD. I can see that you don’t like the GPL, but there are any number of ways in which ISVs and business partners may use Ingres that don’t trigger the viral clause of the GPL. For example, if a proprietary product only connects to Ingres as a JDBC DataSource, and the manufacturer co-distributes Ingres with their product, how does that trigger the viral clause?

“Embedding” is a loose term, too. There are ways to “embed” a database without making it a part of your product. You appear not to have considered those alternatives.

Finally, there are “business-friendly” reasons why software should be protected by the GPL (gasp!). No one wants to contribute to a project whose fruits can be exploited in proprietary ways by a competitor. I’m sure the authors of BSD networking utilities felt really great about Microsoft blatantly porting their stuff to Windows (Decompile the versions of http://ftp.exe and telnet.exe on Windows NT 4.0 and see the license if you want proof).

All in all, a great one-sided article, but far from a balanced picture.

]]>