EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source
Tim and I had a great conversation with Andy Astor of EnterpriseDB last week. EnterpriseDB is a drop-in replacement for Oracle, based on the PostgreSQL codebase. Rather than forking the code, they've developed their product as a collection of extensions on top of PostgreSQL, and their releases track the latest version of the public code. They contribute patches back to the core in the virtuous cycle of benefit->contribute->benefit. They hire several developers to work on PostgreSQL (6, last I heard), and are among the largest donators to PostgreSQL.org. They're a significant open source success story as a viable and growing competitor to the largest commercial database on the market. And yet, they've met a mixed response in the community: enthusiasm for their contributions and participation, but hesitation because their extensions aren't open source.
Nat recently made a provocative post taking the position that companies like EnterpriseDB who don't release all of their source code don't belong in an "Open Source" conference. Really, it goes back to the age-old GPL vs. BSD licensing argument. GPL takes the perspective that proprietary versions should never be allowed, and so requires all versions of GPL'd software to be released under the GPL. The BSD license, as well as Apache, MIT, Artistic, etc., take the perspective that proprietary versions of open source software are an expected part of the open source ecosystem. They're even desirable, especially when the company involved is contributing back to the open version of the code, and employs developers to work on the open version of the code.
It seems a bit hypocritical to extoll the greater freedom offered by the BSD license (as its supporters do), and then look askance at companies who use the rights granted to them. The dual-licensing model of MySQL is only possible because the GPL withholds certain rights from the users. It has always struck me as ironic that the primary use of the GPL in the business world is to exert control over customers and require them to pay licensing fees for uses outside the GPL. Without that option, the other business models available are pure support contracts (which don't make for terribly compelling marketing material), or adding value to the open source code before passing it on to the customer, so they feel they're getting something worth paying for. The latter is the strategy EnterpriseDB is taking, and it's working well for them. And, who knows, some components that are currently proprietary may eventually be released, if for no other reason than the fact that it's easier to maintain changes in the core than to continuously integrate changes between the core and a branch.
Should EnterpriseDB be called an "open source company"? What else would you call a company that bases their entire business on offering support and enhancements for open source software?
tags: open source
| comments: 38
| Sphere It
submit: 
2 TrackBacks
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/5278
UPDATED (Added Dave Dargo's commentary) So, now Alison has chimed in on what constitutes an open source company, taking the position that EnterpriseDB is emphatically so:Should EnterpriseDB be called an "open source company"? What else would you call a ... Read More
I honestly think most people have a hard time caring about this, but..... Not long ago, there was a discussion that EnterpriseDB is not open source software, i.e. EnterpriseDB is/isn't Open Source. Andy Astor, CEO of EnterpriseDB posted a good... Read More
Comments: 38
EnterpriseDB deserves to be as OSCon, because it is beneficial to the larger PostgreSQL community to have someone like them paying developers to work on the code. The whole community wins.
I dont have numbers for this, but I would assume that EDB contributes a much larger portion of their work into the OSS scene than Google does. More importantly their business model depends on open sourcing large chunks of code they develop.
If you look at the pgsql hackers list, I am getting more worried that EDB has too many people working on OSS code for pgsql than too little. Too many because if EDB goes belly up it could become yet another huge challenge to not have pgsql falter (then again Great Bridge's demise did not kill off pgsql either).
So yes they are very much an open source company.
I dont have numbers for this, but I would assume that EDB contributes a much larger portion of their work into the OSS scene than Google does.
I don't doubt that, and I'm not saying EDB isn't a good citizen of the open source community.
But when a company creates code and the most valuable code they create (by their own standards) isn't open source, code that the community would find very valuable if they got to look at it, how can you call that company an open source company?
well is O'Reilly an open source company? Some of those nutshell books are little more than re-packaged man pages. Some of them are released under an open license but not all of them. How is that any different than what EDB does?
How can you be sure that the PostgreSQL community wants the code that EnterpriseDB creates? From my understanding, PG does NOT want the Oracle compatibility features and is just as happy to have EnterpriseDB keep and maintain it. But, they do want and get the performance code.
EDB may offer enhancements for open source, but those enhancements are not open source themselves.Accept it, EDB is not an open source company.
I agree that EDB isn't open source software. If we agree that Red Hat is an open source company (and maybe we don't agree), then it's fine to sell support and extensions. The difference is that Red Hat forked the open source project and released its own version under an open source license. Would EDB be more of an "open source company" if they forked PostgreSQL and released their version under a GPL/BSD license? The current arrangement is far more beneficial to PostgreSQL than a fork would be.
A more important question to ask than what they should call themselves, is whether EDB is a member in good standing of the open source community. If the answer is "No", then we of the community have a problem.
well is O'Reilly an open source company? Some of those nutshell books are little more than re-packaged man pages. Some of them are released under an open license but not all of them. How is that any different than what EDB does?
O'Reilly isn't an open source company. It isn't even a software company. It's a publishing/media company. Questions of open content and creative commons/rights play a part in the business, but source doesn't.
At some point, open source supporters do want to make a profit. You can't always be competitive without some sort of advantage. Look at Red Hat, look at mysql on teh enterprise end. Open source is a new way to market your company, they are giving back to the PostgreSQL base. What's the beef? Do people have to be 100% open source to claim this? Nothing is 100% or absolute.
Maybe to help clarify the marketing there should be some sort of level of open sourceiness. Much like the 100% Pure Java label or old.
Level 1: contribute to open source
Level 2: 50% open source, or actively support a core open source project
Level 42: 100% open source.
So maybe lets try a different angle. What would be a useful definition of "open source" company?
One that sells no proprietary code?
One that makes any code at least also available under an open source license?
One that at least also provides support for open source code?
One that releases most of its code as open source?
One who's business model depends on being a good citizen in an active open source community?
With the first one you would not only eliminate EDB from the list, but also the large numbers of dual licensing companies.
The second one would still not put most of the dual licensing companies back in the list. It probably does not even put MySQL in the list, because IIRC some monitoring tools are MySQL Network only.
The third one definitely does put EDB back in the list, as they provide PostgreSQL support for Solaris.
The 4th one also seems to apply to EDB. As previously pointed out, the PostgreSQL team is not interest in integrating the Oracle compat stuff into their core. Of course they would not mind having that stuff in their contrib repository.
The last one imho should be the real benchmark. I think this separates the "good" from the "bad". This is the one I go by when I think of an "open source" company. EDB certainly is a good citizien in the PostgreSQL community and their business model is very much dependent on this staying that way.
From my understanding, PG does NOT want the Oracle compatibility features and is just as happy to have EnterpriseDB keep and maintain it.
I'm sure there's another group of folks that would LOVE to have access to the EDB code, even if the PG folks don't want it.
Maybe to help clarify the marketing there should be some sort of level of open sourceiness.
Stratification makes sense to me.
You can't always be competitive without some sort of advantage. Look at Red Hat
What do you think Red Hat's advantage is? It sure ain't proprietary code!
look at mysql
Same question, what do you think their advantage is?
Open source is a new way to market your company
It used to be about a way of developing software.
they are giving back to the PostgreSQL base. What's the beef?
I have no "beef" with EDB. They seem to be good open source citizens. But that doesn't make them an open source company like RH or MySQL.
Nothing is 100% or absolute.
That statement is. ;-)
This is exactly how the postgresql architecture, community, and the BSD license in general are designed to work.
Postgresql is easily extensible -- it was one of Stonebreaker's goals in the original design. One of the extension pivot points is the implementation of stored procedure languages. EDB produces a PL/SQL compatable extension language [ amoung other things ]. That is their code, and they're welcome to selling it if they so desire.
They also produce code which improves the core postgresql codebase, such as their HOT table improvements. They've been working as good engaged community members in producing the work-in-progress patches for this. These, if the community decides, could be added to the mainline codebase.
Are they an 'open source' company? Well, they are a for-profit company which also happens to be a good code-producing and value-adding community member. Perhaps a new term needs to be coined.
Come on, guys. For all I know it's the best DB available anywhere, but Enterprise DB is proprietary software built on an open source codebase. This isn't hard.
Parts of Windows' TCP stack (in previous versions, at least) were built on BSD licensed software. I don't hear anyone suggesting that Microsoft should be considered an open source company on the basis of Windows.
With that said, kudos to the Enterprise team for making contributions back to the Postgres code base.
I agree that EDB isn't open source software.
Hmmm... So, EDB creates software that is generally usable (i.e. it isn't specific to some backend infrastructure), but they don't release the source code of that software as open source and they don't provide (end user) support for open source (ala SpikeSource). So, why was it again you wanted to call them an open source company?
A more important question to ask than what they should call themselves, is whether EDB is a member in good standing of the open source community.
I'm not an expert on EDB, but from what I've read here and elsewhere, they contribute significantly to PG. Thus, they should be considered in good standing within the community.
A company can be a good member of the open source community without being an open source company.
The dual-licensing model of MySQL is only possible because the GPL withholds certain rights from the users.
Do you mean rights or privileges? Are those rights inalienable, or are they granted rights? Is a creator's implicit copyright an inalienable right only recently recognized by law, a moral right, or a granted right?
Saying that the GPL "withholds certain rights" sounds, to me, as if you believe those rights are inalienable. That seems... difficult to argue.
ISTM that we're just playing semantic games about the definition of an "open source company" at this point.
[EnterpriseDB] don't provide (end user) support for open source (ala SpikeSource)
Swashbuckler: Actually, EDB offer support services for vanilla PostgreSQL, as well as for their proprietary Postgres-based database.
What do you think Red Hat's advantage is? It sure ain't proprietary code!
Having been doing some of our Red Hat administration lately, I'd like to say a very good word for Red Hat Network and the other administrative tools they provide.
The source code for the Red Hat Network tools, by the way, would be worthless or close to it, in and of itself. It's the intelligence that I acquire and use via RHN that counts.
Swashbuckler: Actually, EDB offer support services for vanilla PostgreSQL, as well as for their proprietary Postgres-based database.
I know they provide third level support for Sun, but do they provide first level support for JoeUser?
In either case, it's a good point though. I still wouldn't call them an open source company (as I have to believe the majority of their revenue comes from a proprietary product), I would call them a hybrid company (which goes to the stratified labelling someone else suggested).
Allison is correct, though - the question shouldn't be what tag you put on the company (e.g. "Open source company"), but are they good open source citizens.
does it matter if people think they are an opensource company or not? that's not going to stop them being one the largest contributors to pgsql, and most successful company selling support for pgsql-based products.
since their business is primarily focussed on building on an opensource foundation, and their product is predominantly opensource, i would classify them as an opensource company, ie. a company involved in opensource, which they clearly are. But what does it matter what i think, nutting, so...
Saying that the GPL "withholds certain rights" sounds, to me, as if you believe those rights are inalienable. That seems... difficult to argue.
It was a statement of fact, not a judgement of values. I'm a firm believer that the copyright holder has the right to release their work under whatever terms they choose (including not releasing it at all).
One who's business model depends on being a good citizen in an active open source community...
This is a good definition. Definitely one I could support.
I have expanded my thoughts a little bit into a blog post you can read over here:
http://pooteeweet.org/blog/602/602
Trackbacks seem to be broken so I'll comment. As long as you place "commercial" on the other end of the spectrum from "open", you are allowing Microsoft PR to frame your market discussion. It's their Shared Source framing afterall. "Commercial" and "open source" are orthogonal. Nat's original with respect to OSCON is still relevant.
http://stephesblog.blogs.com/my_weblog/2007/03/debating_open_s.html
EnterpriseDB is not Open Source.. using EnterpriseDB gives the same kind of Lock-in to one-vendor as any other commercial database gives, if it doesn't, then you dont need EnterpriseDB.
Lets spin this a different way... An analogy has been made elsewhere between 'open source' and the scientific method (and between the 'open source community' and the 'scientific community'). If a company does a lot of in-house R&D, releases some (possibly large) portion of their results publicly, sponsors independent research at universities etc., do they become a scientific research institution? Do they ever become a 'research' company? Does that even make sense?
OTOH, here *are* pure research companies that are for-profit and release most or all of their results, but typically some or all of their methodology and tools are obscured (either for proprietary or for spin reasons), so they fail on the 'science' aspect.
Spin it yet another way: assuming that a company bases *all* of it's products/services on implementations of open standards, and even participates in their development, would you ever want to call them an 'open standards company'?
I think it is telling that even constructing a properly evocative metaphor for what is happening in the industry is difficult.
Ultimately, I think there will be a variety of not-for-profit (and non-profit) FOSS institutions and organizations, and that many companies will participate in the FOSS ecosystem and community productively and profitably, some to greater extent than others, but that the phrase 'Open Source Company' will only be a blip in the language landscape (remember 'Internet Company'?).
I would contend that GPL witholds rights from users. I believe that's the wrong angle when looking at these licenses.
GPL merely has a different implementation of the concept of freedom. Freedom can be absolute (BSD), or relative to other people's freedoms (GPL).
This is quite similar to comparing the US freedom of speech (absolute) versus the same in other countries (where freedom of speech is bounded by infringement on other people's fundamental rights).
BSD allows people to do closed-source forks. That is the freedom of one user, but it prevents others from exercising their freedom to inspect and modify the resulting code.
That is the freedom which GPL preserves.
I'm not saying one is "better freedom" than the other. It's a choice. One person's freedom is another person's hindrance, I suppose. GPL aims for the freedoms of the many in this respect, whereas BSD goes the absolute track.
Arjen I think the point was that dual licensing business choose the GPL because it causes enough "pain" for certain users, so that they are willing to pay for a license .. which is the bulk of MySQL AB's business today. Of course these people are probably not OSS users ..
If EnterpriseDB wants me to take them seriously for open source, they should concentrate on porting Oracle databases to PostgreSQL, and providing technical support. Why would I suggest to my employer he moves from a well supported closed source database, to a less well known closed source database. I have strong confidence Oracle will still be their supporting their products in five years. I have no such confidence in EnterpriseDB. I also have no confidence, we could migrate back off EnterpriseDB in the future if needed.
I am also extremely skeptical about EnterpriseDB, because they claim Oracle compatibility, but do not even bother mentioning which versions of Oracle they are compatible with.
There is little point in a company using open source platforms to consider using EnterpriseDB.
EDB is not and will never be an open source company. As long as the enhancements they make is not released as part of the Open Source project, they are just another software company.
I never heard of EnterpriseDB untill SONY replacing their Oracle with EnterpriseDB,
Positive side : good that making money on open source so that they can support to open source software by giving some code make product stronger.
Negative side : they may be transforming open source product (ONLY GOOD TESTED) parts to closed source and merge with a big joints later.
Most people savvy enough to know and test a site like TIOTI I think are smart enough to not load up their browsers with toolbars. Does the bar even
Arjen I think the point was that dual licensing business choose the GPL because it causes enough "pain" for certain users, so that they are willing to pay for a license .. which is the bulk of MySQL AB's business today. Of course these people are probably not OSS users ..
Post A Comment:
STAY CONNECTED
RECENT COMMENTS
- izlesene on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: very nice! thank you!...
- turk pornosu on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: Arjen I think the point...
- okey on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: Most people savvy enoug...
- Kaithy Aravind Reddy on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: I never heard of Enterp...
- Alani Kuye on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: EDB is not and will nev...
- Bill on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: If EnterpriseDB wants m...
- Lukas on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: Arjen I think the point...
- Arjen Lentz on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: I would contend that GP...
- Michael R. Bernstein on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: Lets spin this a differ...
- Jesper Krogh on EnterpriseDB is/n't Open Source: EnterpriseDB is not Ope...
RADAR TOPICS
Swashbuckler [02.28.07 07:15 PM]
Should EnterpriseDB be called an "open source company"?
No.
What else would you call a company that bases their entire business on offering support and enhancements for open source software?
A software company.
There is a distinction between basing their business on something and having it be their business.
They contribute to an open source project. Great. LOTS of companies do that; most you wouldn't even think of calling open source companies. For example, Google make uses of open source. Google contributes to a variety of open source projects; they contribute enhancements to those projects. I don't think anyone would call Google an open source company.
Finally, EDB may offer enhancements for open source, but those enhancements are not open source themselves.
Accept it, EDB is not an open source company.