Like you say, MySQL Sales Engineers know the GPLv2 well enough, and even if they are not lawyers, at least I ended up in discussions about boundaries of GPL every now and then. Some of them were then deferred to a lawyer for real negotiations.

For the record, I don’t know the source of this story, who apparently wanted to remain anonymous. (Which is understandable if he feels threatened by a potential Oracle lawsuit!)

My first reaction – exactly as you say – was that this is not something anyone in MySQL Sales would say, because it is obviously wrong and secondary it is not how the MySQL offering is even constructed. On the other hand, mistakes happen, for instance an eager new hire might easily make a mistake like this if he is attacking customers before there was a chance to give him training. More importantly, sometimes customers end up speaking to random persons inside Sun, who may know nothing much about MySQL and end up saying almost anything. (Are the Java/GF/IdM Sales Engineers now selling MySQL or not?)

And finally, the customer may have misunderstood something that MySQL Sales actually says, namely at
http://www.mysql.com/consulting/packaged/performance.html
…you can see that you do require MySQL Enterprise as a pre-requisite to performance tuning. MySQL Enterprise is a commercial version, but also GPL. Could easily create misunderstandings with either party.

So I fully agree this is not what MySQL Sales does, and we don’t want to paint a picture telling anyone otherwise. Even so, it is not at all unlikely that a mistake would have happened.

I’m also glad to hear (gossip) that you are taking additional steps to ensure such a mistake cannot happen (again?). If you are in contact with Kurt, we’ll be more than happy to report on that – it’s the least we can do.

I am extremely surprised to hear this story.

First of all, Sun sales engineers working on MySQL products are not lawyers and by policy they never engage in such discussions, so I really don’t know how it is possible that the conversation could have reached the conclusions that your friend presented.

Second, sales engineers have enough knowledge of GPLv2 to understand when the use of the product is against the licensing policies. I can assure you that, based on what you explained, nobody would have ever considered that the user was infringing the law. I can only think that there has been a misunderstanding between the parties or a missing part in the whole story.

Third point, you mention MySQL Enterprise, which is a subscription-based product still under GPLv2, so I really cannot see how MySQL Enterprise could help here or it could have been suggested by the sales engineer.

I am really sorry to hear these kind of stories and I feel even more sorry to read some sharp comments supporting this vision of evil people trying to extort money in any possible way. I am sure that your new colleague Henrik shares the same sentiment, since he was a Sun sales engineer like us and he perfectly knows that none of us, Sun sales engineers, would have never said such things.

Seeing that you are employed by the very company I am discussing here:

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Curry_Steve_630664449.aspx

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/18/mysql_enterprise_fit/ | grep Curry

http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS172284+21-Apr-2009+BW20090421 | grep Curry

etc etc

you may not be the most unbiased reviewer of my post. And, it would be good form to reveal your affiliations in cases like this.

BTW, I left you voicemail with an offer to discuss this issue at your leisure. That offer stands.

In my world, that’s not a winning combination — but best of luck to you.

Would you care to elaborate? What exactly worries you? The fact my source asked not to be revealed? Something else … ?

I hope not — but based on this post, I’m worried.

You are implying that, by the very next words you typed.

Believe it, or do not, it matters not to me. Just remember “Deep Throat” and the Nixon presidency. Keeping sources secret is no barrier to truth, and a well-established journalistic norm.