Dispelling some unintentional MySQL FUD

There are three types of FUD: the first and more genuine is (#1) the intentional spreading of falsehood, mostly to gain some marketing advantage over a competing product. While I despise this practice, I understand it. Then there is (#2) FUD spread by ignorance, when the originators are so blindly enraged by their hatred for a product that they don't care about getting the facts straight. And finally, there is a third kind, not less dangerous, which is (#3) the spreading of FUD with good intentions, when the authors believe that they have the facts straight and they want to help.

I have recently come across two examples of unintentional FUD. For different reasons, my comments to these public cases did not get through, and then I have to say something about that here in my blog.

MySQL is not ACID complaint

This surprising piece of news came in the blog of a company that calls itself the remote DBA experts.
The claim is this: if I insert a record in a table and then issue a ROLLBACK command, the record is not rolled back.
Anyone who has a minimal knowledge of MySQL knows about InnoDB tables (luckily for the poster, InnoDB is default in MySQL 5.5.6, which he was testing) and autocommit.
Reading through the example, one sees that the poster did not know about this piece of information. In MySQL, autocommit is ON by default. So if you want to rollback a record, you need to deactivate it. This is not optimal, and it can be debated, but if you read the docs, you don't claim something that is simply the result of your lack of knowledge. MySQL has shortcomings, but being unable to rollback a record is not one of them. Hence, this is FUD type #2.
Why I am writing all this here and not as a comment in that blog? Because I did post a comment, on November 23rd, but as of today, it has not been approved yet. The same is true for comments posted by other more knowledgeable people.

MySQL licenses. When it's free and when you need to pay for one.

This article is well intentioned. MySQL Licenses: The Do's and Don'ts of Open Source, or What's All the Fuss About? is a well thought piece, with practical examples, to help users decide what to do with MySQL licensing, i.e. when they need to pay and when they don't. Unfortunately, the article contains some unintentional confusion, and therefore leaves the readers with more wrong ideas than they had before.
I left a long comment on that blog, but for some unfathomable reason it was reduced to a tiny piece, and thus the need for explaining the matter here again.
The poster says this:

I make commercial software, which needs to have MySQL installed. My customers can use my commercial software, for which they do need to buy a license, in combination with the MySQL database engine, for which they don't need to pay. Because the MySQL engine is not embedded in my commercial software and I don't redistribute MySQL together with my software, I don't need a commercial license for MySQL and neither do my customers.

I am afraid that this wishful information is not correct. The GPL FAQ states it clearly:

If a library is released under the GPL (not the LGPL), does that mean that any program which uses it has to be under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license?
Yes, because the program as it is actually run includes the library.

Another quote:

However... as long as I have no desire to sell the embedded MySQL source code commercially, I can let the GPL license apply.

Also this is not true. The GPL does not regulate commercial transactions. It only deals with distribution of software. If I want to distribute a public domain but GPL-incompatible software linked to a GPL application or library, I am violating the GPL, even if I don't charge anything.

Another source of disinformation is "If you decide to pay for a MySQL license, you don't actually pay for the software."
This is also incorrect. Oracle sells two kind of things with MySQL. One thing is a subscription to services (MySQL Enterprise). If you buy this, you are not getting a license (unless you ask for it explicitly) but an agreement about services for a given periods.
The other thing that Oracle sells is licenses. They can do it because they own the source code, and they can decide to release it either as GPL (which is what you download from the MySQL site) or with a commercial license. If you ask for a license, you will most definitely get one. You can also get a license together with a subscription, if you are so inclined, but that doesn't mean that you aren't buying a license.
The important thing to understand to put the matter in perspective, is that the above information about licensing was still true before 2008, when MySQL was owned by MySQL AB, and it is still true today. Oracle, despite all the preemptive accusations of being ill intentioned, has not changed the rules of the game.
PlanetMySQL Voting: Vote UP / Vote DOWN