Oracle Acquires Sleepycat

Deven writes "Computerworld is reporting that Oracle has just acquired Sleepycat Software (makers of the open-source Berkeley DB embedded database) for an undisclosed sum. Having previously acquired Innobase, Oracle is certainly taking a look at diversity."

Interesting ....

[joe_n_bloe]

.. o O o ..

Can Oracle's acquisitions be predicted based upon the database backends used with MySQL? What other backends work with MySQL?

Why do this?

[BigZaphod]

Why buy up all these other database alternatives? The only good reason I can think of is that they are trying to cover all ranges of database needs. I guess that makes sense, but are they going to combine all of these products into one interoperable system and thus destroy the original advantages the previous products had?

Damn.

[cosmotron]

What a bad reason to lay off their employees [slashdot.org]. I can't believe that they bought another company [slashdot.org]...

The "Symantec" and Macromedia Approach

[joe_n_bloe]

Buy good product. Stop selling product.

Drove me nuts back in my Mac programming days. But at least now developers can fork the open source code, should the creator decide it shouldn't be so open any more.

Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle

[jadavis]

Oracle now owns two MySQL backend products. First InnoDB, which was their primary transaction-supporting backend, and now BerkeleyDB. Now, in order for MySQL AB to license MySQL database commercially, they need Oracle's permission (that is, if they want basic database features like atomic transactions).

And if you don't get a commercial license from MySQL AB, you can't link the mysql client library to a non-GPL application. That means, if you have a non-GPL application and you want to add support for MySQL, you are now dependent on Oracle.

Re:Its not competition

[jadavis]

Yes it does, as a potential replacement for InnoDB as a backend for MySQL. When Oracle bought Innobase (makers of InnoDB), all the MySQL people suggested improving the BerkeleyDB backend to make it their primary transaction-supporting backend. Now, looks like that's owned by Oracle to. Maybe it's a coincidence? Or maybe the licensing of MySQL really is a weakness*, and Oracle saw a cheap way to exploit it.

* MySQL licenses the client libraries as GPL, meaning that any application that has support for MySQL needs to either be GPL or get a commercial license.

Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL

[Andy Tai]

Oracle may have screwed up the ability of MySQL to license the proprietary version of their database and may even killed MySQL's primary revenue stream, but they cannot remove MySQL, Berkeley DB or innobase from the market. Maybe MySQL will adapt, or someone will pick up the MySQL business, but the Free databases will continue to gain on Oracle. Oracle's nightmare cannot go away.

How will this affect BDB-using projects?

[TheBracket]

I wonder how this will affect other projects using the BDB back-end (for example, OpenLDAP and Subversion). I imagine Oracle can't pull the source for already open versions, and it might be possible for a free fork to emerge if it is needed - but it could put a cloud over those projects while they arrange alternative back-ends.

Re:Oracle cannot kill the GPLed MySQL

[nikoftime]

They can't kill off the GPLed MySQL, but they can kill off the **commercial version** by purchasing the backend products and then reducing or eliminating their development. This means that a company or third party vendor that wanted to develop an app using MySQL would not be able to use the commercial version of MySQL in an effective way (since they would now be tied to Oracle, and Oracle's development whims of development for the MySQL backend products like InnoDB and BDB), and they also cannot use the GPLed MySQL unless they want to GPL their own application.

Oracle thus makes it sensible for any vendor who doesn't want to be tied to an rapidly deprecating platform to use the Oracle database.

Challenge for Open Source

[cyberjessy]

This could become one of the biggest challenges for Open Source in the years to come. The biggies could but these companies (often run by a handful of good men) for a small sum; and then change the way they function. Of course the old source will still be available, but the guys who know the intricacies will no longer be working on it. Bug fixes might be late, new features may never come. Many of the old users will leave, some stay hoping for the best. All the roadmaps vanish. Until someone picks up the ashes and starts again. Rebirth.

I am not sure how fair it will be to ask any company/people to not take a multi-MILLION dollar offer, so that they would remain FREE.

You can mod this funny, 'cause after I finished writing it feels like a para from MadMax.

Re:Its not competition - Oh yes it is

[Snowhare]

Do a Google groupd search for MySQL. Do a second one for Oracle.

Surprise! MySQL has 75% as many messages about it as Oracle does.

They damn well are competition. They are eating Oracle's entry market. Not everyone needs a super-duper database. A good enough free database trumps a extremely overpriced 'perfect' one in most applications.

Re:Its not competition

[LLuthor]

As I said to the other poster: The BDB code may be covered by patents which Oracle could choose to exercise, thereby preventing the BDB code from being used despite its liberal license.

PotgreSQL...

[curious.corn]

... dodge this. Really folks, except for the nifty LAMP acronym what is it that keeps MySQL afloat? There's no reason not to go with PostgreSQL, a neat, cool and scary DBMS. If only those phpBB look alike script packs didn't insist hardcoding MySQL dialects in their code this would be a non story, it's that simple. It's like insisting on using VB just because everyone else does... and PostgreSQL documentation is good, so there's no "I can't figure it out" excuse.

Re:is that the way...

[SwashbucklingCowboy]

Sure Oracle understands. They also understand that enterprises want support . Any company can pick up the source code to Berkeley DB and run with it. But that company cannot sell a commercial license, they can only provide support.

Re:Two MySQL backends owned by Oracle

[QuantumG]

Call me crazy, but isn't it trivial to write your own client lib? I mean, looking at the source code here, it appears to just be a wrapper that opens a socket (tcp or unix), writes your plain text SQL request to it and reads back the response. I can remember someone asking me to add mySQL support to an app about 6 years ago and I didn't even use the client lib cause I didn't think anyone would need a library for something that simple.

Re:Sleepycat responds

[mattkime]

sorry man, but i think this post is a fraud.

i have a hard time believing you've done such 1337 work yet your slashdot id is so much higher than mine.