Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Databases

Monty Wants To Save MySQL 371

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the take-backsies-are-hard dept.
An anonymous reader writes "It seems as if the MySQL author is trying hard to win back control over MySQL. In his blog he calls upon the MySQL users to 'Help keep the Internet free' by signing his petition. He fears that if Oracle buys Sun they automatically get MySQL which would spell doom for the project. But I have have mixed feelings with this call for help, because after all — who sold MySQL in the first place?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Monty Wants To Save MySQL

Comments Filter:
  • yay (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 04, 2010 @11:58AM (#30641560)

    ...First at last

    For the sake of topic titles, I'd rather if Monty saved Python.

  • well... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by buanzo (542591) on Monday January 04, 2010 @11:58AM (#30641562) Homepage
    we still have pgsql, right? yeah, migration, but still free/libre, right? first post? nah...
  • How many times... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Will this show up every 2 weeks on /.

  • Own fault (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Monday January 04, 2010 @11:59AM (#30641574) Journal

    Maybe he shouldn't had sold it in the first time, so he wouldn't be crying it back now?

    It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Maybe he shouldn't had sold it in the first time, so he wouldn't be crying it back now?

      Agreed. 'Crying it back' is the lowest form of groveling. Of course, I am a huge fan of Leadbelly's classic blues song "Crying It All Back Home Now."

      It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

      The concept of girlfriend?! In an explanatory analogy on Slashdot. Know your audience.

      • by PizzaAnalogyGuy (1684610) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:09PM (#30641768)
        If you go to a pizza joint and order a buffalo chicken style pizza with tender chicken breast, hot sauce, and onions with provolone and American cheeses on a cheddar crust, and eat it with a big glass of mountain dew, you can't just go back and say "Now that I think of it, I would rather have had Hawaiian style pan-pizza with sliced ham, bacon, pineapple and roasted red peppers with provolone cheese on a parmesan crust". You've made your deal already. If you want an another pizza, you have to buy it again.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by maxume (22995)

          Is it still edible if it has American cheese on it?

    • by Thanshin (1188877) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:06PM (#30641712)

      It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

      Or, to put it in Slashdot terms:

      It's like you broke up with your car and then go crying it back when it has found a new owner, while you're having no luck finding another car.

      • It's like you broke up with your car and then go crying it back when it has found a new owner, while you're having no luck finding another car.

        It's like you broke up with your parents and then go crying back when they have found a new tenant, while you're having no luck finding another basement.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      More like breaking up with his wife, signing the divorce papers and custody agreements, but now she wants to move to another state where access to his kids will be far more difficult. Because Monty went with the dual licensing model, he thought he could retain his business model as well.

      This is _exactly_ the sort of wanting to have your cake and eat it, too, model that the GPL helps _avoid_. The situation is in fact mislabeled as a GPL issue. It was the dual model, GPL for the core and BSD for business vent

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by TheRaven64 (641858)

        It was the dual model, GPL for the core and BSD for business ventures model that Sun used and that Monty's later business ventures are based on, and that is now at risk.

        Minor nitpick, but it wasn't BSD for businesses. The BSD license permits sublicensing - you can redistribute under the same terms that you received - while the MySQL commercial license does not. If it did, then there would be no problem. One of the commercial customers could simply release the code under the BSDL and everyone could use their fork.

    • Re:Own fault (Score:5, Informative)

      by sean_nestor (781844) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:27PM (#30642044) Homepage

      FTA:

      Q: Didn't you sell MySQL to Sun? Do you want to have the cake and eat it too?

      First a little background:

      I started to work on a code that would later become MySQL in 1982. MySQL was released in 1995 under a dual licensing scheme that allowed David Axmark and me to very quickly work full time on developing MySQL.

      I lost the rights to the MySQL copyright in 2001 when MySQL AB was created and we allowed investors to come in. We needed to bring in investors to be able to create a full-scale working company to satisfy big customers and to be able to hire more developers and take MySQL to the next stage. To ensure that MySQL would continue to be free, David and I stated in the shareholder agreement that MySQL AB would have to keep MySQL under an open source license. The problem with a shareholder agreement is that it is terminated when the company is sold. This is just how things works.

      David and I however thought that this would not be a problem, as we would help ensure that MySQL would be bought by a good owner.

      I continued to lead the MySQL project and have been one of the leaders and top contributors for the project since then.

      When the sales process to Sun started, I was at the time not anymore in the MySQL Board (just a MySQL shareholder). I was just informed about the deal, after it was agreed to. I did get money for my shares, that is true, but it did not change in any way my dedication or involvement in the MySQL project.

      • Re:Own fault (Score:5, Insightful)

        by sopssa (1498795) * <sopssa@email.com> on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:54PM (#30642492) Journal

        David and I however thought that this would not be a problem, as we would help ensure that MySQL would be bought by a good owner.

        So it was really short-sighted thinking. They should had have some clause that limits how MySQL project would be possibly resold, or not sell the company at all, because its pretty clear that the project could be resold or go along with larger corporate overtakes. It's happened hundreds of times. They got to have known this.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by EnglishTim (9662)

          Do you think they would have been able to get the investment if they had stipulated that the company couldn't be sold? I'm sure they realised that there were risks in taking the path they took; but that was the cost of being able to afford enough developers to keep MySQL competitive.

        • Re:Own fault (Score:4, Interesting)

          by montywi (1713110) on Monday January 04, 2010 @04:30PM (#30645598)

          When you take in investors, it's impossible to get such a clause. (Don't think that we didn't try).

          So, in 2001, David and I had the choice to continue like before and grow slowly or take a risk and grow
          rapidly.

          Growing meant more resources for development and a better Open Source database overall. The price to pay was less control.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Kagato (116051)

        Basically Monty fell into the classic pitfall technical people with great ideas fall into. In order to have the successful project they need money. Money in these situations typically comes from venture capital firms (investors). The stated strategy of many firms is to remove the founders (in particular when they come from a technical background) from the business side of the organization. Once a VC and their slate of investors is on the board with a significant share of the equity the downfall of the f

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by yttrstein (891553)
        I have to step in and say something here. If at any point in the 90s or early oughts... even up to 2004, you'd considered dropping in the ability to do hot DB dumps without table locking, you would have very likely gotten bigger than Oracle. (Much as Linux has gotten bigger than Solaris). It was idiocy of you not to do so, in favor of... god only knows what.

        And now frankly its too little, too late. MYSQL is pretty ok for a light-to-medium duty database, but you guys have had a couple of decades to really
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tushar.tyagi (1453665)

      It's like you broke up with your girlfriend and then go crying her back when she has found a new guy, while you're having no luck.

      If Oracle does whatever MySQL guy thinks it'll do then that means the new guy is trying to kill your girl. In that case it's all right trying to save her.

    • Original source [trolltalk.com]

      Background: MySQL is an open-source database used by millions. Originally developed by closely-held Swedish company MySQL AB, it was sold to Sun Microsystems Inc in January 2008. Sun is now in the process of being acquired Oracle Corporation. The deal is still awaiting European regulatory approval.

      Not happy with selling MySQL AB to Sun for a cool billion, Monty Widenius is now trolling regulators, the media, and anyone who will listen in his efforts to get back control of "his" database (without having to give back the money).

      European regulators still don't "get" the open-source software model

      The Europeans are holding up their approval of the Sun-Oracle deal because of concerns that the acquisition will reduce competition in the database industry. Oracle Corp, which is already the dominant player in large-scale corporate databases, already "controls" several open-source database products such as Oracle Berkeley DB and the InnoDB transactional storage engine for MysQL

      The reason I put "controls" in quotes is because it's very difficult to actually exert full control an open-source project, especially one that is licensed under the GPL or similar open-source license. It would probably be more accurate to say that Oracle "sponsors" both BerkeleyDB and InnoDB.

      It's all about being an unabashed hypocrite

      Widenius was originally able to control MySQL by insisting that the copyright for all code contributed by outsiders be assigned to MySQL AB. By doing this, Widenius was able to "dual-license" MySQL, with both a free GPL version and a paid commercial version.

      This licensing scheme was good enough when Widenius was in control of MySQL AB, but now that Oracle is buying Sun, suddenly Widenius wants both the licensing scheme changed to something that would allow his new company to sell modified copies without having to release the source code for their changes, and to have Oracle turn over control of MySQL to someone other than Oracle - perhaps the EU should consider (nudge nudge, wink wink) his new company, Monty Program AB?

      Calls the GPL licensing scheme an "infection", wants the EU to violate international treaties

      You can read more [groklaw.net] about the attempt to get the Europeans to retroactively change the licensing scheme from the GPL to something more "Monty Widenius-friendly":

      We would like to draw attention to the fact that some major concerns about the effects of the proposed transaction could be somewhat alleviated by requiring that all versions of MySQL source code previously released under the GPLv2 license (whether in a General Availability, Release Candidate, Beta, Alpha release, or as public bazaar or bitkeeper revision control trees) must be released under a more liberal open source license that is usable also by the OEM users and would also create an opportuity for other service vendors to compete with offerings comparable to MySQL Enterprise.

      In other words, he wants the European Union to violate Articles 9 and 12 of the Bern Convention on Copyrights and retroactively change the license from the GPL, which requires him to share any changes he makes to source code covered by the GPL, to a license that would let him take from the original authors, but not give back anything in return.

      The "copyleft/infection" principle of the GPL license represents a particular obstacle not only to revenue generation by the fork vendor but also to the overall adoption and market penetration of MySQL, MySQL forks and MySQL storage engines....

      When we were kids, our parents told us "share and share alike." The authors who contributed source code under the GPL adhered to this principle. If you don't want to share your changes, simply don't "borrow" their

  • Me too! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by TheRaven64 (641858) on Monday January 04, 2010 @11:59AM (#30641586) Journal
    I, too, would love to sell something for a billion dollars and then have it given back.
  • Not just his blog (Score:5, Informative)

    by dals_rule (1076803) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:00PM (#30641604)
    He also spammed everybody who's ever been dumb enough to let him get anywhere near their e-mail address with the same self-serving, hypocritical screed...
  • No he doesn't (Score:5, Informative)

    by wiredlogic (135348) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:00PM (#30641618)

    This has been hashed out before. Monty wants to force the legitimate owner of MySQL to give up its rights to the documentation and proprietary parts of the source code so he can deploy his own commercial product using MariaDB. It's that simple. He got a big payoff when he cashed out and now he wants to double dip by getting back for free what he has already been compensated for.

    • by dkf (304284)

      He got a big payoff when he cashed out and now he wants to double dip by getting back for free what he has already been compensated for.

      He could offer to purchase the proprietary parts off Sun using some of that money he got paid for selling out in the first place. Otherwise, well, it's now Sun's (and so Oracle's if Larry Ellison can stop himself from insulting the European Commission even further) and Monty will just have to console himself with looking whiny and sniveling. Or he could try hookers and blackjack.

      • Re:No he doesn't (Score:5, Interesting)

        by JSBiff (87824) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:35PM (#30642174) Journal

        There's an interesting thing hidden in this whole mess. . . The argument that Monty makes for why he doesn't think MySQL can survive as a strictly GPL product is that it would cut off the ability of him and others to make money selling non-GPL products which *link* to MySQL. This is based upon the notion that dynamically linking an executable with a GPL library (or linking a non-GPL library with a GPL executable) violates the GPL - which of course is an assertion the FSF likes to make. I am not a lawyer, but I've tried to research this and find an answer to the following question: does dynamic linking actually create a copyright infringement situation (i.e. a derivative work)?

        From a technical standpoint, you can argue back and forth on the merits all day. But, from a standpoint of the law, so far as I've been able to tell, this is a question that has never been addressed by courts or legislation. Personally, I feel the most reasonable interpretation (from the standpoint of being consistent and, well, logical) would be that linking does *not* create a derivative work (for example, is Firefox a derivative of the Flash plugin, or Flash plugin a derivative of Firefox? Seems to me they are fairly independent works that use the mechanism of dynamic linking to work together.)

        But, I also agree with other posters that Monty got a Billion bucks, and now wants to get MySQL back, and that's just kind of shady. You sell something, you get paid, it's not yours anymore. Maybe Monty can *buy it back* from Sun before they sell to Oracle - seems like that would be fair to all parties involved, and clear the way for the Oracle/Sun merger.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jrumney (197329)
          The Flash plugin does not merely use dynamic linking to create a derivative work of Firefox. It uses a published API for the express purpose of making such plugins, with permission granted by the original author of that API - Mosaic Communications Company.
  • I read the blog/petition last week. (What else is there to do at work between Christmas and New Year's?)

    I understand the concern - that MySQL will be an in-house "competitor" for resources to Oracle's database. However, why wouldn't they be complimentary?

    Also, since a large portion of the original MySQL is OSS, then I see no reason an entity couldn't take it and create a forked product to compete in that space. This would be like Websphere and Apache co-existing. IBM goes after the corporate market and Apa
  • How intellectually lazy is it to say there won't be a free DB? Do I want to migrate from MySQL to PG? No. But, if the economics of MySQL become prohibitive, it's not like I'm going to kill myself over it. I'm going to move on.

    If the existing solutions aren't good enough, then a new solution will emerge. That's economics. The niche is already proven by MySQL. If MySQL ceases to fill that niche, it won't be long before something else fills it.

    • Actually, as far as I can tell, he's not saying there won't be a free DB. He's saying that you can fork the code but not the ecosystem, which is nonsense. Look at X.org for a counterexample; if the original is not being invested in (which he claims he fears) then the fork becomes the official version. The only one of his complaints that makes sense is that Oracle might discontinue commercial licenses for MySQL. The only reason that you need a commercial license for MySQL is if you are going to distribut
      • His "Help keep the Internet free" stuff implies that without MySQL there's nothing.
      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by tepples (727027)

        Quite why you'd pick MySQL if you wanted a database to incorporate into your product instead of SQLite or PostgreSQL, I have no idea.

        Shared web hosting providers offer only MySQL, not PostgreSQL. If you want PostgreSQL, that's a lot of money to move up to a virtual dedicated server.

        SQLite isn't intended for high levels of concurrency; its locking is much coarser. One gets plenty of "OperationalError: database is locked". And it only recently gained support for foreign key constraints and data type constraints (by compiling them into triggers) in a newer version that hasn't yet made it into long-term-supported server operating systems

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by TheRaven64 (641858)

          Shared web hosting providers offer only MySQL, not PostgreSQL. If you want PostgreSQL, that's a lot of money to move up to a virtual dedicated server.

          Not entirely true, lots of shared web hosts also provide PostgreSQL, but completely irrelevant. I have never seen a shared web host that runs software that bundles MySQL. They may have third party software that uses MySQL via PHP, for example, but this does not need a commercial license.

          SQLite isn't intended for high levels of concurrency; its locking is much coarser. One gets plenty of "OperationalError: database is locked". And it only recently gained support for foreign key constraints and data type constraints (by compiling them into triggers) in a newer version that hasn't yet made it into long-term-supported server operating systems such as CentOS 5.x and Ubuntu 8.04.

          Again, you're talking about having SQLite installed already, not bundling it with your commercial code. If you need a small db, you can link SQLite directly into your app. If you need a bigger db, you can require the use

          • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

            by tepples (727027)

            They may have third party software that uses MySQL via PHP

            PHP is under a GPL-incompatible license. If Oracle terminates the FOSS exception for new versions of the MySQL client library, hosts won't be able to use PHP with new versions of the MySQL client library.

            you use one of the permissively-licensed MySQL client libraries.

            I've read posturing from MySQL AB or Sun (I don't remember which) that the permissive licenses on these client libraries are invalid because either A. the very act of using MySQL's wire protocol is considered "combining modules into one Program", B. MySQL uses patented methods licensed only for use with pro

        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          by metamatic (202216)

          Shared web hosting providers offer only MySQL, not PostgreSQL.

          Maybe the really crap ones. I have shared hosting with PostgreSQL for a few bucks a month. I mean, Cpanel has full PostgreSQL support, it's not like the hosting provider has to do a lot of work.

  • by bcrowell (177657) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:04PM (#30641664) Homepage
    He got paid a large amount of money for MySQL, and now he's not satisfied. MySQL is under GPL v. 2, so there isn't a problem. If Sun takes it in a bad direction, it can be forked.
  • by raftpeople (844215) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:06PM (#30641702)
    don't Monty me on this deal!
  • Dear Monty... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Richard_at_work (517087) <<richardprice> <at> <gmail.com>> on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:06PM (#30641706)
    If you had never sold MySQL to Sun in the first place, it wouldn't be in the position it is now in. I hope the money was worth it.

    Why are you so concerned now? Your chance to do something came and went, and so did you.

    Also, I rather think you overrate MySQL in that petition post, but thats just mho.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by montywi (1713110)
      I have answered your questions in my blog post here [blogspot.com]
      What we are now working on is just to ensure that MySQL gets a good home, which is of benefit for all MySQL users.
  • by A beautiful mind (821714) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:08PM (#30641750)
    It's called PostgreSQL. It's fast, what's even more important, it's correct and it's tried and tested. Get it here [postgresql.org].
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by up4fun (602118)

      And another in the wings as drizzle [drizzle.org] - a fork of mysql. This is getting a lot of attention and some parts are considerably cleaner and faster than mysql.

    • It's called PostgreSQL.

      MySQL has plenty of affordable shared hosting providers. What company do you recommend for hosting web sites based on PostgreSQL?

  • by SwashbucklingCowboy (727629) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:09PM (#30641758)

    He wants to build another business on MySQL and force Oracle into letting him do it.

    This is greed masquerading as virtue.

  • Monty is a douche (Score:4, Interesting)

    by thetoadwarrior (1268702) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:09PM (#30641764) Homepage
    He got his money and now he sees an opportunity to get his code back that he sold and the shyster is doing what he can to get it back.

    He has his own db, MariaDB and if it's any good then he shouldn't care since its whole purpose is that it's a replacement to MySQL.

    I've also noticed he's not allowing comments on his blog that counter his points no matter how mature and well presented they are.

    I really hope Oracle gets the ok, if for any reason to shit in this guy's Cheerios. I won't have anything to do anything he's working on.
  • "In January, 2008, Sun legally acquired MySQL for $1 billion."
    •     You have to provide references [mysql.com] before saying something like that. :)

          It was $1B in total considerations, which most likely wasn't all cash. I'm sure all of it didn't go in Monty's pocket, but I'm sure he did walk away with a pretty nice sum.

          There's a thing about business though. Most places want to grow a business from nothing, to the point where it's a viable product to sell. Then they sell it. All of it. There's no looking back. It was yours, now it's not. So sorry, move on.

          If I made something, and it sold for $1B, I'd be a pretty happy camper. Hell, Sabeer Bhatia [wikipedia.org] sold Hotmail in 1997 for $400M, and he was happy. Now (in a 2007 article I read), is funding new startups with the hope of making the next killer app that will be bigger than Hotmail.

          I have a few things that I've done, and if someone offered me even $1M to give one up, I'd take it. I wouldn't look back. I'd smile the whole way to the bank. :)

          If he wants MySQL back, tough. If Sun decides to gut it, and make the MySQL site into a porn link farm web site, and the database engine into a shell script that greps a flat file, so be it. It's theirs, and it's their decision. They could sell to Oracle, or Microsoft, or anyone they'd like.

          If he *really* wants it back, he should put his effort into his new database, and don't give it up next time, even for $1B.

  • Why? Because the alleged shortcommings of PostgreSQL can be solved and it is far more superior to MySQL when it comes to supporting partial indexes. MySQL would not know how to handle this.

  • by praseodym (813457) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:15PM (#30641856) Homepage
    Since InnoDB (the only proper storage engine in the default MySQL distribution) is owned by Oracle already, why bother?
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by msimm (580077)
      You know he'd started the Maria engine because of concerns regarding InnoDB's ownership (Oracle bought Innobase Oy in October 2005) in 2007.
  • Seriously, you have to be a moron to take him seriously at this point. Anyone who is motivated to protect something like he claims to be in protecting MySQL does not sell off the rights to a multinational corporation, especially not one in constant turmoil like Sun has been for several years. If he wanted to protect MySQL, what he would have done is tried to turn the company into a non-profit like Mozilla.
  • by ReallyEvilCanine (991886) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:16PM (#30641874) Homepage
    This three-week-old story hasn't changed a bit and neither has Monty's disingenuous hypocrisy.

    If he'd wanted to retain control then why did he sell mySQL to Sun? Once that sale was completed he gave up his rights and claims. He certainly didn't have a problem with a corporation owning it in exchange for a cool billion earlier.

    What Sun said they wanted to do with it is immaterial; Monty's rights to do anything more than complain vocally were terminated by his own hand the instant he signed the contract, and were made irreversible when he deposited that check.

    The fact of the matter is that Oracle doesn't give more than about a shit-and-a-half about mySQL. Oracle cares about Enterprise installations and mySQL not only ain't there now, it never will be. Even Foxbase^W^H MS SQL Server spanks it 37 ways to next Tuesday in Enterprise and Data Warehousing environments.

    Meanwhile, if mySQL really is and has remained open source, then it's still open, so Monty should STFU and fork it already. If not, then he himself killed it and there's no one else to blame.

    Once you sell your 2CV to someone, you have no more say in what's done with the car, even if it turns out to have been bought by Top Gear and they want to blow it up. Once you take the money, you don't get to complain anymore. If it had meant that much to Monty then why did he sell?

    Cake: have vs. eat.

    The comment moderation on his blog is just icing on that cake -- only comments supporting poor, ickle widdle Monty's untenable position are allowed through.

    And for those who still refuse to change the "evil Oracle" record, The base Oracle DB charge [oracle.com] is $350 (Std) / $950 (Ent) per user or $17,500 (Std) / $47,500 (Ent) per processor -- annually, not including required support and other charges -- Oracle doesn't give a shit about mySQL and the paltry few thousand that supporting it might bring in.

    If it's really still Open Sauce and the community doesn't like what happens with it then mySQL will fork. Again. Except that it will need a new core team since the current core team has bills to pay and enjoys employment during an economic mess.

  • by frinkacheese (790787) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:16PM (#30641884) Journal
    So MySQL sold for a cool $1 billion in whatever it was, and now he wants to get it back for free? This is so funny it may just work.
    • by toby (759) *

      He explains in the related blog post [blogspot.com] that the founders (presumably meaning Widenius and Axmark) received "less than 12% of the deal", which is quite believable.

      The EUR 16 million figure is from Widenius' Wikipedia entry. [wikipedia.org] (Which is famously served by MySQL.:)

      In any case, this large lump of cash is only about half what Sun or Oracle would spend on MySQL R&D in just one year, and obviously a small fraction of what would be needed to buy it back - especially after the sale to Oracle is concluded, and assumi

  • Wow, must be nice to be as famous as Madonna and no longer need a last name.

  • He apparently went through the database of everyone who had ever submitted a bug report and vacuumed up email addresses, because that's the only way he would have known me to send me his appeal. That's not stooping low: that's slithering.

  • Having seen the date 1969-12-31 one time too many, I say let the fucker die.

    DIE DIE DIE!

    I hate HATE HATE HATE mysql.

    (why yes, I have recently been replaying FF VI. Why do you ask?)

  • by mseeger (40923)
    It looks to me more like "I had to destroy MySQL in order to save it". He is (IMHO) not doing anyone a favor.....
  • Taking Monty at face value he seems to be saying Mysql was such a dynamic open source poject because of the way it was funded (a GPL codebase with a propriety licence for any one willing to pay), giving it lots of cash to develop (enabling full-time developers to work on the code base). Mysql (in Montys view) was not like Linux that had a distributed development effort behind it.
    Taking him at face value this seems to be a weekness in Mysql development model, the Oracle buy out is a case in point.
    Not taki
  • Unclean Hands (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Blackeagle_Falcon (784253) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:42PM (#30642278)
    So, Monty uses dual licensing to turn his open source software into a profitable company, sells that company for a billion dollars, and now he's suddenly concerned with freedom. Oracle buying MySQL may be bad, but I don't think Monty has much credibility in opposing it.
  • by rickb928 (945187) on Monday January 04, 2010 @12:58PM (#30642580) Homepage Journal

    .... is the preposterous idea that Sun and/or Oracle care a whit about online petitions or email campaigns.

    Unless Monty is just indulging in a popularity survey. In which case he forgot to ask us how we 'felt' about this.

    I, BTW, feel like you've gotten your money and want your cake back as well. Good luck. Fork it and compete with your previous employer, ok?

    sheesh.

  • I'm sorry, but Monty sold his baby, and got well paid for it. If I could sell any program I wrote for a fraction of what he sold MySQL for, and they kicked me out of working on it, I could do any number of any other things I wanted to work on in life. Come on Monty, attack P=NP. It's not like you need a job.

  • Question (Score:3, Funny)

    by rudy_wayne (414635) on Monday January 04, 2010 @01:14PM (#30642826)

    If Oracle cuts MySQL loose, does Monty have to give back the billion dollars?

  • Time to switch... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by XB-70 (812342) on Monday January 04, 2010 @01:17PM (#30642878)
    Instead of whining, it's time to make the switch to a 'real' database: PostgreSQL - http://www.postgresql.org/ [postgresql.org]

    It may not be as fast as MySQL, but it's certainly more robust and capable. If you look at the core of ORACLE's design (which is pretty damned good), you'll find that Postgresql has similar design principals.

    When it comes to data loss, I'd rather the more robust database than the fastest one.

  • by mpapet (761907) on Monday January 04, 2010 @01:29PM (#30643050) Homepage

    1. MySQL would need to be a sufficiently revenue-producing entity in order for it to sustain internal development at Oracle. What those revenue producing metrics are is impossible to know from the outside. I'm a pessimist though and would estimate whatever MySQL dev is done in-house will probably get chopped by 2/3 in order to make the revenue fit into their financing targets. That's assuming Oracle doesn't abandon it right away.

    2. This $1 Billion number being thrown around is a PR number. I'd guess Monty's gotten 10's of thousands of dollars for closing the deal. Other than that his payout won't come. He won't get paid because the value of the deal is typically based on payouts based on future earnings. We know Sun couldn't turn it into a bigger revenue producer. With the change in ownership, I'm sure Oracle will renege on whatever deal he had with Sun and tell Monty to "Go pound sand. Your issue is with the Sun Officers who signed the deal, not Oracle."

    3. I bet he's got a non-compete that prevents him from directly starting something. Which, Oracle would enforce while pretending about other parts of the agreement. That's why he's got this petition thing.

    Monty pretended those future payouts would work, got screwed by Sun, and now he's trying to get back in the game.

    Today's entrepreneurial lesson: get paid today, not tomorrow.

As the trials of life continue to take their toll, remember that there is always a future in Computer Maintenance. -- National Lampoon, "Deteriorata"

Working...