Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

MySQL to Counter Oracle's Purchase of InnoDB

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the corporate-chess dept.

Miff writes "Computerworld is reporting that MySQL is hoping to counter Oracle's acquisition of InnoDB by providing its customers with an alternative." From the article: "Axmark said the storage engine is 'pluggable,' meaning other storage engines can be substituted instead. He said the code for InnoDB is under the GPL (General Public License), so 'the code is always out there. It will always be out there.'"

6 of 215 comments (clear)

  1. Silly by jimmyhat3939 · · Score: 5, Interesting
    I think this battle between Oracle and MySql is kind of silly. The two databases serve different purposes:

    • MySql is excellent for anything ranging from the casual user (a few tables, 1000 rows in each) up to fairly complex transactional work (a small or medium-sized company).
    • Oracle has a bunch of extra features, like an excellent fuzzy text search engine and certain optimizers for complex queries that MySql doesn't (and IMHO shouldn't) have. Oracle is the DB of choice for non-M$ medium-to-large databases.

    There are other differences. Setup and configuration of MySql is much simpler, and you don't have to go as crazy creating complex partition schemes on your hard disks to get decent performance. But again, that's as it should be -- for simpler projects you want the free alternative.

    --
    Free 411! 1-800-411-SAVE

    --
    Free Conference Call -- No Spam, High Quality
    1. Re:Silly by fbg111 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's a bit simpler - Oracle is for anyone who knows what data integrity is and requires it, MySQL is for anyone else. PostgreSQL is the free, acceptable alternative to Oracle.

      --
      Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  2. Re:InnoDB by fbg111 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few questions come to mind:

    1. Does Oracle need InnoDB? Would Oracle gain features or capabilities they don't already have by incorporating it into their database? If so, then perhaps we're looking at a fork.

    2. If InnoDB is forked, does MySQL have the developer talent to continue advancing InnoDB, or will the OSS community do it for them, or will it stagnate?

    --
    Flying is easy, just throw yourself at the ground and miss. -Douglas Adams
  3. The real problem by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Informative

    MySQL does not provide a transaction-safe store free of licensing overhead. Commercial licensing of BDB, SAP-DB, and InnoDB all require relicensing agreements.

    These being availble for use under the GPL and similar licenses helps out everyone who uses MySQL under the GPL. But it doesn't help anyone else out, including MySQL. What MySQL needs is the ability to add something like MVCC to a table type that they own. Oh wait that will never work because MyISAM should be pretty much at odds with the whole concept. I guess it is time to build one from scratch.

    So the inevitable outcome is that MySQL will probably have to write a storage engine from scratch that meets all the needs that InnoDB filled.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
  4. Re:InnoDB by linuxhansl · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The issue is this:
    MySQL makes some of its revenue by selling non-open-source licenses to customers who, for whatever reason, do not widh to publish their contribution.

    Now, you can only release code under any license of your choice if you own all the copyrights.

    Once Oracle owns the copyrights to InnoDB (and if Oracle does not extend the same relicensing rights to MySQL that InnoDB did), the only option MySQL has is redistributing a derived work under the GPL, they are legally no longer allowed to release under any other license. This in turn cuts off one of their revenue streams.

  5. Re:Patent Threat by joto · · Score: 5, Informative
    If InnoDB contains patented technology that Oracle now owns as a result of their acquisition of InnoDB, isn't that a moot point since InnoDB already released that stuff under the GPL?

    No. Repeat after me: "patents have nothing to do with copyright!". Write it on the chalkboard 100 times...

    There could be patents covering the GPL-licensed code, which InnoDB might not have enforced. Of course, thinking in this way is almost paranoid, but it has happened before, remember GIF?

    No matter how GPL'd the code is, if it violates patents, it is illegal to distribute in countries where that patent is valid. If you doubt me, the text of the GPL license itself spells this out for you. And even if you already have a copy, unless it comes with a patent license, it's illegal to run as well.