Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Databases Oracle Sun Microsystems

Oracle Responds To MySQL Purchase Concerns 156

Posted by Soulskill
from the we-cool-man-we-cool dept.
Luke has no name writes "Yesterday we discussed MySQL founder Monty Widenius's objections to the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle. Today, Oracle released a statement to address some of these issues. Among their commitments, Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL, allow vendors to produce 'any-license' third-party engines, maintain the Reference Manual, invest millions into the product, and create a 'customer advisory board.' The pledges are still not enough for some, however."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Oracle Responds To MySQL Purchase Concerns

Comments Filter:
  • Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Midnight Thunder (17205) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:34PM (#30434442) Homepage Journal

    If you think about it makes sense for Oracle to continue developing MySQL, since this is like Nissan and Infiniti where the customer is provided with a high-end product and a low-end product. Oracle gets to offer service for both, recognising that not everyone wants to have to deal with the Oracle database product, either due to cost or needs. At the same time for customers growing past what MySQL is good at, Oracle can then offer them an upgrade path to their premium product.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Insightful)

      by herring0 (1286926) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:46PM (#30434574)

      Along the same line as the high-end/low-end thing Oracle does have a 'low-end' Oracle database (Oracle XE) but it's never really gotten any kind of following or use that I have seen. So I could definitely understand their interest in providing an entry-level system with their name attached.

      I've not understood the complaints about sharing the market space. Anyone running full-blown Oracle database systems will be well and truly beyond MySQL. Aside from that, try and get some PHB to understand that MySQL is in any way comparable to Oracle.

      On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.

      And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing. So sorry, you sold your rights to it. Fork it and start over if you really care that much.

      • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

        by rutledjw (447990) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:27PM (#30435050) Homepage

        And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing. So sorry, you sold your rights to it. Fork it and start over if you really care that much.

        This is an interesting point. It IS open source and can be forked. How much work in improving the DB occurs within Sun (and soon Oracle) presently? Aside from ignoring new features which are introduced to the open source version, how much damage will ignoring the code base really cause?

        I would assume (possibly dangerous) that most MySQL users are savvy enough to use a different flavor of the MySQL code base if the one they're currently on gets stale. I don't see Oracle introducing iterative improvements for MySQL and certainly little or nothing which will be under an open license. I CAN see them layering other features on top which don't become a part of the code base. Not sure why they would pursue such a path unless they want to poke at SQL Server some...

        • by vegiVamp (518171)
          I'm on the MySQL user mailing lists, and believe me, some "users" aren't savvy enough to figure out that they're using the wrong table in a simple select. Honestly, the place feels like kindergarten at times.
      • by Blakey Rat (99501)

        In addition to that, it's already what one of their major DB competitors, Microsoft is doing. SQL Express is fine for a lot of apps (admittedly not as many as MySQL), and Microsoft's free "give them a taste" product before you upgrade to SQL Server.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Penguinisto (415985) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:50PM (#30434620) Journal

      Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.

      What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase? You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.

      • http://www.oracle.com/technology/software/products/berkeley-db/index.html [oracle.com]

        I'm confused too.

        Unless Oracle Express is different enough from their main code base that it would be less trouble to ditch Express and just let the OSS crowd continue to maintain MySQL.

        Plus Express is still harder to install than MySQL, and a usable version of MySQL "ships" with every Linux (and BSD?) distro.

      • by headLITE (171240)

        The problem why XE hasn't gained any measurable following is its CPU and DB size restrictions. Effectively you are allowed to use Oracle XE for applications where MySQL, or probably flat files, are sufficient and/or more efficient.

    • Re:Makes sense (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Locke2005 (849178) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:45PM (#30435240)
      It's not just like Nissan/Infity. Expensive cars cost more to build. The marginal cost for software is damn near zero. Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database. The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales. They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tomhudson (43916)

        The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales. They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.

        The only reason they have to buy MySQL is that it is part and parcel of the Sun purchase. And they haven't gone around like Monty Widenius and his buddy, who are demanding that the EU violate the Bern Convention on Copyrights by invalidating the GPL on all versions of MySQL ever released [trolltalk.com].

        They

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Znork (31774)

          The only reason they have to buy MySQL is that it is part and parcel of the Sun purchase.

          Yes, that was the appearance at the start. By now it seems that if MySQL was just something tagging along for the ride with the Sun purchase, Oracle would have offered to spin it off as soon as the EC sounded like it was going to do anything but a cursory rubber stamping of the deal. With the way Ellison is behaving it's looking more like the rest of Sun is the disposable tag along and that MySQL was the meat of the dea

          • by tomhudson (43916)

            Or perhaps Oracle, like Novell and IBM, doesn't like people trying to blackmail them into doing something ... Sun is bleeding money because of the delays, and Widenius tried to use that as leverage, and failed. At this point he's just another Darl McBride - "gimme what I want or I drag you through hell."

            Widenius and Co. have shown their true colours by asking the EU to invalidate the GPL on all versions of MySQL ever released (contrary to the Bern Convention). They're no friends of open source - never

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Locke2005 (849178)
          Ever thought that's probably because the codebases are incompatible, and not for any nefarious reasons? I never said it was for nefarious reasons. Oracle has spent years paying top dollar to some very bright engineers to optimize it's database core. There would be very little improvement they could make by copying MySQL. I don't have any problem with Oracle's technology; their engineers are top notch. Unfortunately, their sales and marketing people are scumbags. (I should know, I used to work for the Oracle
      • Cost to build doesn't really matter. What does matter is perceived value. If it costs more to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you are screwed. If it costs less to build than customers are willing to pay for, then you have a winner.

        Oracle might have their XE product, but what they really want is customers. It is better to have customers paying for something than have a product that is simply not selling, even if it is a small amount. Don't underestimate the number of companies willing to po

        • by Locke2005 (849178)
          Cost to build doesn't really matter. What does matter is perceived value. When you're talking about strippers, that is true. (What's the marginal cost of a lap dance, anyway?) But I would think corporate buyers would be a little more sophisticated.
      • by Tim C (15259)

        Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database.

        They do [oracle.com].

  • by rahvin112 (446269) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:35PM (#30434470)

    The original founders of MySQL are using the merger talks in the EU along with SAP and Microsoft to harm competition. The founders goal is to have the code licensed under the BSD so they can take the code they develop private. Monty and Florian have NEVER been friends of the GPL. Don't believe a word they say.

    • by Ziekheid (1427027)
      Could you provide a source to support your claims?
      • by sribe (304414) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:17PM (#30434956)

        groklaw [groklaw.net] quotes from his submission to the EC, pointing out things that he had specifically denied previous to this disclosure.

        • by ThePhilips (752041) on Monday December 14, 2009 @07:15PM (#30437062) Homepage Journal

          That is nothing new. The problem is that Monty now found himself on the other side of fence and he is faced with the same choice as MySQL AB customers were in past: get a free GPLed MySQL fork or buy a license for a commercial MySQL variant.

          GPL played the evil trick that you can't link commercial applications against libmysql*. IOW, to develop proprietary closed-source MySQL based product, you have to buy a license for the commercial fork of MySQL. And that is to my understanding the matter of his objection. And it is a rather valid objection, since Oracle now has a way to kill completely (not only Monty but) whole commercial infrastructure surrounding MySQL .

          On one side I'm sadistically happy that Monty himself got the taste of it. On another side I also recognize that building something like MySQL completely open source might have been impossible and some revenue stream is much required. (Even much touted PostgreSQL, thanks to BSD license, has quite a number of proprietary applications around it.)

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by rahvin112 (446269)

            If Monty wants it back I'm sure the 1Billion he got paid can be used to pay to redevelop the code.

            Oracle has no incentive to kill the MySQL ecosystem, it's going to be their low end competitor against MS and SAP products. It has more value to them as a working system than a dead one. If that had been their intention to kill MySQL they could have done immense damage when they acquired INNODB, at least temporarily. Yet they continued to develop and improve INNODB just like they will with MySQL.

            Oracle's bread

            • I don't think anyone is thinking Oracle wants to kill MySQL. But, it is likely that they will make sure that it doesn't compete with their bread and butter. That puts a cap on the capabilities in the enterprise but leaves it wide open for the Web.

              Oracle has owned and maintained InnoDB and shown a good track record. But, when you look closely, the transaction performance of InnoDB has never been that good and that seems to play into Oracles hand. I would expect Oracle to continue to develop it, but never let

              • > But, it is likely that they will make sure that it doesn't compete with their bread and butter.

                A few posts up, someone made an interesting observation. If Oracle truly wants to kill off MySQL by weeding out everyone besides people using it for personal websites and free projects that aren't potential customers for a commercial database at any price, all they have to do is make it GPLv3, and quit selling commercial-use licenses (not cheap, but paying for one means you can use MySQL in a closed-source pr

            • Oracle's bread and butter is support contracts, not license revenue.

              That's right. And I'm already terrified with prospects that to deploy MySQL I would need the same amount of pains (and two/more certifications) as with Oracle.

              MySQL is simple and slick RDBMS. In some part it caught in market because it it very easy to deploy, rather easy to develop for and quite easy to maintain.

              Monty is a liar, Groklaw caught him in the lie and he shouldn't be trusted.

              As a techie who built a RDBMS competing with Oracle, I would pay anytime Monty much more attention than some over-religious zealots over at Groklaw.

              Because as a techie too, I understand that

    • by mcoon (648300) on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:16PM (#30434936) Homepage
      Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL. Once the switch is made, you never have to look back.
  • Fork? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ickleberry (864871) <web@pineapple.vg> on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:35PM (#30434474) Homepage
    Would it not be a good idea to fork MySQL at this point? rather than relying on Oracle who pledge (which is not legally binding) to continue supporting MySQL and giving it away for free. Even though there is no compelling reason for them to unless they plan to assimilate it into their outrageously priced commercial database packages

    Big companies like Oracle are just not to be trusted, any embracing they do must be seen as simply the first step to extending and extinguishing. It would be completely naive to think otherwise
    • Re:Fork? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:45PM (#30434564) Homepage Journal
      There are a number of MySQL forks, one of which is being operated by Monty's company, under the GPL. They don't seem to need BSD for that.
      • They do need it released under MIT, BSD or Apache if they want to sell it for a billion dollars again.

        I loved MySQL because it was a great example of how to make money with open source.
    • Re:Fork? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Col. Klink (retired) (11632) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:48PM (#30434596)

      Anyone can fork at anytime. The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL. He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL. It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself. The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by middlemen (765373)

        The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.

        So, basically Monty screwed himself in the deal! Haha! He should now change his name to Monty Wide-Anus.

    • Re:Fork? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Sir_Lewk (967686) <sirlewk&gmail,com> on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:48PM (#30434600)

      How about waiting to see what happens, then forking if needed? There really is no reason to fork ahead of time, all it will accomplish is fragmenting the userbase and cause tension in the community.

      Honestly I'm getting tired of all of this "OMG Oracle bought MySQL, the sky is falling!!!" nonsense. If the sky does start to fall, then fork. Otherwise just stop, it's getting annoying.

    • by jeffstar (134407)

      They pledge to spend upwards of 24 million a year on developing and improving mysql for the next three years.

      What fork is going to be able to out pace the oracle version with all that money, which ought to mean developer hours, lavished upon it?

      The press release says they will continue releasing GPL community editions in lockstep with enterprise editions.

      Fork it when they stop pouring money and developer hours from the best database company out there into the project.

      MySQL might get better under oracle, and

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by FlyingGuy (989135)

      You may or may not trust Larry and Co. and that of course is your right.

      But I gotta say, I don't see ANYTHING in MySQL worth folding into the Oracle Database.

      When it comes to pure DB power I have yet to see anything that even comes close to Oracle.

      Yes Oracle is not cheap but let me give you a little story on that.

      I hade a particularly nasty problem a couple of years back and the client I was working was fully licensed and thus had support, so I picked up the phone and opened an incident and was on with an

      • by Sxooter (29722)

        You do know you can get 24/7 support for MySQL and PostgreSQL, right? right? From the people who write / wrote the code no less, not some support guy thirteen levels removed from development.

  • The pledges are still not enough for some"

    Yeah, because some people hate anything bigger than the mom/pop store down the street.

    I would love to see some sort of Social Contract for big companies, where they sign the dotted line to assure us of their "word".

  • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:37PM (#30434492) Homepage Journal

    Monty has been paid somewhere north of 100 Million dollars in the MySQL purchase by Sun. Now, having been paid, Monty wants MySQL back for his business - without returning the money. And Monty has no problem with FUD-ing the GPL to get what he wants, even if the GPL provided half of the business method (dual-licensing) that made him rich.

    Now, having been paid, I would think that an ethical position for Monty would be to allow MySQL's new owners to have what they paid for.

    We can all use MySQL with no problem whatsoever under the GPL. With proprietary clients and Free clients, with no problem. An application across the network interface from the server, speaking a published and standard protocol, is not a derivative work. The GPL wouldn't apply to such an application. There is a GPL-ed client library that has to be replaced with a non-GPL version, but that version has existed for a decade.

    Monty is free to do his business with the GPL version if he wishes. But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.

    Bruce

    • Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)

      by Dog-Cow (21281)

      But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.

      Everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. That's generally the point, after all.

      What you meant to write is: he wants to eat his cake and have it too.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by onefriedrice (1171917)

        But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.

        What you meant to write is: he wants to eat his cake and have it too.

        No... Bruce wrote the idiom correctly [wikipedia.org].

    • Under the GPL you can sell your product. as long as you transfer all the rights with it under the GPL.

      If MySQL was not under the GPL at the time shame on Monty, if MySQL was under the GPL, then the joke is on Sun for paying so much for a copy of MySQL. And Oracle has all the rights of any other user of MySQL under the GPL.

      Given that Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL. Grab a copy While you can. And you can maintain your version. I do not believe the GPL part of wh
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Xtifr (1323)

        If MySQL was not under the GPL at the time shame on Monty,

        It was, but the copyright holder is free to offer the code under other licenses. Monty's complaint is now that he sold the copyrights, he can no longer offer the code under other license terms. It was a fairly lucrative business for him, but he sold that business for a lot of money, and now he wants to have it given back to him for free. (Free as in beer, not speech.)

        Your arguments apply just fine to the rest of us. Oracle owning the GPL'd MySQL is no threat to anyone except Monty's greed.

      • by Bruce Perens (3872) * <bruce@perens.com> on Monday December 14, 2009 @04:46PM (#30435248) Homepage Journal

        It sounds as if you could be a little confused about this. MySQL owned the complete copyright to the MySQL server. So, they could commercially license it as well as provide it under the GPL. Most GPL projects do not have this capability, because no one entity owns the entire copyright and the aggregate of all copyright holders do not work together to dual-license.

        So, Sun bought the rights to commercially license MySQL, and to enforce the GPL on those who do not have commercial licenses. Now Oracle will have that.

        • by tomhudson (43916)

          The question is, did Sun actually buy it to sell commercial licenses, or as a way to push an integrated hardware stack? Server, Operating system, Java, Office suite, Database and support - all open-source, and all from one vendor. It would make for a compelling argument, and Apple has shown that you can make a profit on hardware and increase your market share if you have all the software components lined up.

          • by greg1104 (461138)

            In addition, Sun got MySQL's sales channel too. I've heard speculation that one thing Sun was hoping to learn from them was how to sell open-source software to people. Sun would love to have a better idea how to keep the free OpenSolaris going while still making money selling Solaris, but it's not so clear that they know how to do that well. That's something MySQL has done fairly well--the commercial versions are just different enough that people buy them, while still getting plenty of new users flowing

            • by tomhudson (43916)

              Insights into that area are not as useful to Oracle though.

              If it helps get them mind-share, it means that people will look at their other offerings. I personally think they bought Sun for Java, not for MySQL or the hardware biz. There's no reason the java runtime can't be adapted to work with a whole slew of front-end languages - and no reason that Java can't have multiple back-ends bolted onto it. Beat the crap out of Microsofts' CLR and .NET, cover the whole processor and application space from embed

          • by dissy (172727)

            The question is, did Sun actually buy it to sell commercial licenses, or as a way to push an integrated hardware stack?

            No and no. Oh, and no.

            Oracle did not out right buy MySQL. Oracle bought Sun.

            It is akin to saying that while you went to McDonalds to get a meal, you only BOUGHT a napkin.
            No, the napkin comes with the meal, which is the thing you purchased.

            Thinking Oracle had any desire to have MySQL when their one and only intent was clearly to purchase Sun (mainly a hardware company, thou yes they wanted their software divisions too, of which there are many more than just MySQL)

            One can ponder why Oracle bought Sun all da

            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              by tomhudson (43916)

              I think Oracle bought Sun for Java [slashdot.org], and that everything else was bonus material.

              Oracle uses Java, their customers use Java, it's all over the place ... a chance to keep it out of competitors' hands is a bonus, but the real reason would be to be able to exercise more control over the direction the language takes.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cyphercell (843398)

      I agree, but it's not just an ethical position, but a pragmatic one also, if he expects to sell much software in the future or have any influence on MySQL's current direction.

      It seems he is refusing to take responsibility for his own actions.

  • by geoffrobinson (109879) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:37PM (#30434494) Homepage

    no kidding. If you are unreasonable enough or you have absolutely no trust in Oracle, nothing will get rid of your concerns.

    The source code being under the GPL currently so you could fork it if needed (what the GPL was intended for in the first place) isn't enough for some people.

  • by sproketboy (608031) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:44PM (#30434554)

    I know I'm going to be modded down for this but why bother with MySQL at all? There are other better free databases out there. MySQL is still not even ANSI 92 compliant yet.

    • by Yvan256 (722131) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:50PM (#30434622) Homepage Journal

      Because 99.99% of the web hosting companies offer LAMP setups?

      • Because 99.99% of the web hosting companies offer LAMP setups?

        Yup. Like it or not, MySQL is the default generic database that's available almost everywhere.

        Pretty much any web host out there offers MySQL databases. Sure, they might very well offer other databases as well... But it'll vary some from one host to another. The one you can pretty much count on being supported anywhere is MySQL.

        So the assorted blog/CMS software gets written to interface with MySQL. Again, very often various packages will talk to other databases... But they almost all support MySQL.

        So,

      • by ivoras (455934)
        Ah, so it's a vendor lockin situation :)
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Yvan256 (722131)

          In this case I think it's more about laziness than vendor lockin. ;)

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by interval1066 (668936)
            Exactly correct, in my opinion. A number of LAMP set-ups diverge from the M in LAMP because they offer Postgresql (LAPP?) as an alternative to MySQL and I'm sure most of the admins speed right on by the psql option simply because they aren't familiar with it option, which is a shame really as I think psql is the superior one.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by LWATCDR (28044)

        And about 90% of all CMS's Forums, and goodness knows what else use MySQL as their primary database. Those that do allow you to use other databases treat them as second class citizens.

      • by Dan Ost (415913)

        Seriously, how many don't also offer Postgres?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Bruce Perens (3872) *
      Because it works with so much software. Next to that, ANSI 92 isn't important. It makes sense that Open Source could trump an Open Standard.
    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Good part of the power of a database(/programming language/operating system/etc) is the people behind it, the community, the ecosystem, the odds of finding someone that knows it already, and how widely deployed and tested is. And if over that it works, better yet.
  • by CodeBuster (516420) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:51PM (#30434630)
    It appears that Oracle has now made some public promises with regard to MySQL so couldn't we return the favor and give them some time and see how it goes before allowing the GPL "true believers" tar and feather them? If any company that touches a GPL product gets burnt, no matter what their intentions, then doesn't that ultimately hurt rather than help the cause of free software?
    • by Trepidity (597)

      I don't think it's really GPL partisans here, but rather people around Monty worried about the non-GPL, commercial-licensing angle. Note that in the article linked under "still not enough for some", one of the main complaints they keep harping on is that Sun only agreed to guarantee existing commercial licenses for 5 years. That has nothing to do with the GPL version.

      I suspect the kvetching has more to do with business and profit than with free software, because I don't really see any pro-free-software comp

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bruce Perens (3872) *
        Yes. Having seen Eben Moglen speak in favor of Oracle, if someone thinks the GPL partisans are the problem they aren't reading more than the headlines.
    • by F452 (97091)

      I posted a link below to GPL true believer Eben Moglen's opinion about this takeover -- it may surprise you. :-)

    • Can you read!

      GPL supporters support Oracle purchasing MySQL for the very reason that the GPL protects MySQL. Oracle cannot take back the code. Oracle cannot prevent people from using MySQL. Oracle cannot prevent MySQL from forking.

      However, the founders of MySQL do not like the GPL and wish to wall off the code from MySQL.

      Oracle is not the problem, it's the anti-GPL crowed that is the problem.
  • This is all about the EU blocking Oracle's acquisition of Sun. They are trolling for testimonials about how the Sun acquisition would force people to buy Oracle DB, which is almost certainly would not:

    http://www.moneycontrol.com/news/ibu_index.php?storyid=832 [moneycontrol.com]

    Look at Berkeley DB (on which OpenLDAP uttely depends.) It's now "Oracle Berkeley DB". I don't see any monkey business with that arrangement (although the OpenLDAP people are probably working on ditching BDB just as due diligence.)

  • by F452 (97091) on Monday December 14, 2009 @03:57PM (#30434700) Homepage

    The SFLC's Eben Moglen is okay with Oracle taking on MySQL:

    http://emoglen.law.columbia.edu/blog/cases/oracle-sun/ec-hearing-and-after.html?seemore=y [columbia.edu]

    Among other interesting analysis:

    "In fact, I think they're wrong. I don't think the GPL is a bad economic fit for MySQL. I believe that Oracle sees clearly the nature of its business interests. It knows that MySQL is much, much more valuable to it alive than dead. In fact, Oracle has almost as much reason to improve MySQL as it has to improve its flagship product. For a small firm, like MySQL AB, dual-licensing revenue was the only efficient revenue source with which to develop the product. But for Oracle, service revenue is much more significant than dual-licensing royalties. As all parties who have spoken about the merger agree, regardless of which side they are on, enterprises that use Oracle are very likely to use MySQL also, because MySQL is the world leader in number of installs. Which means that companies that pay Oracle to service Oracle are very likely to pay Oracle to service MySQL as well, if Oracle is not only servicing MySQL but acting as primary funder and participant in a flourishing MySQL ecology. Even if Oracle were only willing to invest in MySQL the extent of its ability to increase the MySQL service business, Oracle would be the best thing that ever ichappened to MySQL. In fact, Oracle has an immense incentive to invest far more in MySQL than the extent of its increased winnings in the MySQL service market. MySQL driven technologically and economically by Oracle will be a price-zero full-GPL missile aimed at Microsoft SQL Server. "

  • Of course oracle would say anything to get a hold of Mysql no matter how much they are trying to say it is a completely different solution. Then in a year they can say something along the lines that "business conditions have changed" and kill it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      Oracle cannot kill MySQL. The code has been released via the GPL license. This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it!

      Why are people so stupid!
      • Oracle cannot kill MySQL. The code has been released via the GPL license. This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it! Why are people so stupid!

        I'm sure you're aware of this, but forking is not a feature of the GPL. You could just as easily have put: "The code is open source. This means anyone can fork MySQL and continue to develop it!" But I'm sure that's what your implication was.

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by selven (1556643)

          Forking is a feature of the GPL, just like mobility is a feature of a Segway: it's not the only tool that gets the job done, but the statement is still accurate.

      • by KarmaMB84 (743001)
        MySQL Enterprise licensees will probably jump ship to another database ASAP if they kill development/support.
      • by Dan667 (564390)
        not under the MySQL name and if it forks a dozen ways or even drives a percentage of those people to oracle they would call it a win.
    • by jeffstar (134407)

      Was Mysql even a factor in them purcashing sun?

      if sun paid 1 billion for mysql and oracle paid 7 billion for sun, it is 1/7th of the deal right?

      If 1/7th of the deal is holding up the rest of it, they'll do whatever they can to get the other 6/7ths through, including dumping money into an open source project.

      They didn't really buy Sun for Mysql right, solaris, java, the sun servers and processors have got to have had way more appeal for Oracle, which already has the best database, than an already GPL'd proje

  • Whenever there's a question about the GPL or GPL-licensed software, the standard argument is "if you don't like the direction it's going, you can take the code and maintain it yourself". Why is MySQL any different? Is it because the owner is a corporation rather than an individual? Frankly, if you believe in the GPL it shouldn't matter who (or what) owns a particular piece of software.

    If, on the other hand, you want to say "MySQL is different because it's used everywhere, so we need additional guarantees fr

  • Consider this scenario:

    • your website shopping cart uses Oracle because it hooks into Oracle Financials.
    • your cluster of web servers get their data from replicated MySQL instances, because you can scale this up easily and with minimal cost.
    • You replicate your inventory numbers from Oracle to the MySQL instances.

    This is in fact a typical use case for Golden Gate, which has just been acquired by Oracle.

    http://www.goldengate.com/ [goldengate.com]

  • Time for a fork my friends. The time of MySQL has passed, the time for OurSQL has come.

    I'm so clever... go to OurSQL.org, like I did, and guess what? Someone registered it back in '07 and is promising to give to the folks who fork MySQL. It wasn't me. Wish it were, I checked out the big three URLs just in case I was lucky enough be able to register it before I posted, found out I'm not so clever.

    OurSQL.com is, of course, for sale.
    OurSQL.net has a page that says... "hello there, please work."

For every bloke who makes his mark, there's half a dozen waiting to rub it out. -- Andy Capp

Working...