Oracle Bid to Acquire MySQL

i_frame writes "CNet is reporting on a recent Oracle bid for open-source database MySQL. They were unsuccessful." From the article: "'It all comes back to the question of cannibalizing an existing business,' O'Grady said. 'If you determine that to some extent it's inevitable, wouldn't you prefer that you do it, instead of your competitors?' O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode, a company that commercializes the open-source Geronimo Java application server software and competed with IBM's own proprietary WebSphere product."

Comments

Re:MicroracleSoft

[GigsVT]

You know it's GPL right?

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[dr_d_19]

What isn't mentioned is that this would probably ruin many small businesses who depend on open-source software because they can't afford large expensive distributions such as Oracle

Yeah, because no other similiar solutions exists. Right?

Not For Sale

[Billosaur]

MySQL Chief Executive Marten Mickos confirmed the acquisition attempt in an interview at the Open Source Business Conference here but wouldn't provide details such as when the approach was made or how much money Oracle offered.

He did, however, say why he turned down Oracle's offer: the desire to keep his company's independence. "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL," Mickos said.

Oracle didn't immediately comment on the acquisition offer.

Oracle has become bloated and greedy (not unlike another large software company I could mention) and as their product continues to be mired in expensive add-ons and upgrades that not many IT departments have use for, they are seeing MySQL as the herald of their doom. MySQL is a lean, mean RDBMS that is slowly becoming the darling of programmers (how many PHP/MySQL books are there?) and Oracle is dominating the large-scale market but can't seem to make in-roads in the smaller markets. On the one hand, they covet MySQL's success; on the other, they see MySQL as a competitor to be squashed.

Larry Ellison better watch his back - the open source community may decide to start truly gunning for him.

Principled or just stubborn?

[atomic777]

[MySQL Chief Executive Marten Mickos] did, however, say why he turned down Oracle's offer: the desire to keep his company's independence. "We will be part of a larger company, but it will be called MySQL,"

Given that Oracle has already acquired the makers of two of MySQL's transactional engines, putting them in a real tough spot, I'm sure Mr. Ellison assumed this final offer to MySQL to be just a formality.

This kind of integrity is so rare these days. Whatever happens, we should all try our best to support MySQL in what may be a losing battle against an evil foe.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

It's not like the open source MySQL is going to go away if they buy MySQL AB.

No, but it gives Oracle and excellent barganing position. They can effectively kill the upgrades to MySQL that would turn it into a real database. (Look Gepeto, I'm a real boy!) Then when customers come through looking to use MySQL, Oracle will try to upsell them to Oracle or one of their other properties. Even if the customer decides on MySQL, that's still revenue for Oracle.

If Oracle wanted to be really nasty, they could start legally enforcing MySQL's interpretation of the GPL. i.e. If your software uses MySQL but isn't GPLed, Oracle could sue you for failing to keep up the licensing terms. Even if you are just using it for internal, non-distributable software (such as a web app), many companies would rather pay up a small licensing fee rather than tango with Oracle in court.

DB becomes a commodity.

[autopr0n]

The RDBM provides a standard function in a standard way. It only makes sense that it would become commoditized, and in the software world commoditized = free. Sure oracle offers some pretty impressive features, but at some point the cost of implementing those features yourself or the cost of not using those features is exceeded by the cost of buying oracle.

Remember, MySQL has a closed-source business model trying to sell non-GPL'd versions of their source code - and oracle, now owning the original source Innodb and BerkleyDB can prevent them from doing that. MySQL can still use the GPL'd versions in their GPL'd products, but their closed source products go away, or at least they could. And Oracle isn't a company known for playing softball.

Re:They could kill it.

[Karzz1]

They could. But an application as important and popular as MySQL would simply fork. Simply look at X.org vs XFree86.

Re:Foxpro

[Haeleth]

Remember what Microsoft did to Foxpro?

Yeah, they bought the product and continue to this day to pay a team of programmers to develop it. Microsoft Visual FoxPro 9 Service Pack 1 was released just two months ago.

Uh, wait, I was supposed to say that they did something nasty, wasn't I? Sorry, but when a company has released four major versions of a product in 8 years, and is committed to supporting the current release through to 2015, it's really rather hard to say that they've evilly crushed the competition like a bug beneath their iron boots.

MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[Reality Master 201]

MySQL is fine for doing websites, or bulletin boards, or dinky little apps. The markets for Oracle and MySQL, though, basically don't overlap at all. Apart from companies which already have a significant infrastructure built to support and maintain Oracle databases, nobody's gonna use Oracle for most of the applications that MySQL is typically used for. More complex business applications require more functionality than MySQL provides. Oracle provides an assload of features, even in the lowest end version of their product, that most people writing the average web app just won't need.

MySQL isn't a competetor for Oracle in the space where Oracle is usually deployed. IBM DB2, MSSQL Server - those are the competetors for Oracle. And probably PostgreSQL is too. It provides a lot of functionality that you'd want in those kinds of applications, and its free. It has the problem, however, of overcoming entrenched attitudes towards 1) anything that's free, and 2) anything that's unfamiliar. Me? I'd use PostgreSQL for those apps, but that's me. Often, there's vendor platoform requirements that'd make that impossible, or management level edicts that prescribe platoforms.

If anything, the purchase of MySQL was intended to soften the image of Oracle and make it appear to be more of a player in the low end. They have (rightly) a reputation for being expensive, and this was probably a ploy at changing that. It's not fear of MySQL's technical prowess.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

1. MySQL's interpretation is that by accessing MySQL over the network, you're "linking" against it.

2. MySQL has further enforced this by GPLing all of the drivers, which you MUST link against in order to access MySQL.

3. Did I mention that Oracle could take them to court regardless of whether or not they're actually in violation? Did I also mention that most companies would pay up rather than go to court? Why yes, I do believe I mentioned that.

MySQL OSS License Page

In their simplest form, the following are general licensing guidelines:

        * If your software is licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, then use our GPL licensed version.
        * If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you are not licensing and distributing your source code under GPL, you need to purchase a commercial license of MySQL
        * If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective commercial licenses. That is the safest solution. Licensing questions can submitted online for our advice, and we encourage you to refer to the Free Software Foundation or a lawyer as appropriate.

The older version of that page was more to the point:

3. Commercial use for everyone else

If your application is not licensed under GPL or compatible OSI license approved by MySQL AB and you intend to distribute MySQL software (be that internally or externally), you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL software in question.

More specifically:

a) If you include the MySQL server in your non Open Source application, you need a commercial licence for the MySQL server

b) If you include one of the MySQL drivers in your non Open Source application (so that your application can run with MySQL), you need a commercial licence for the driver(s) in question. The MySQL drivers currently include an ODBC driver, a JDBC driver and the C language library.

c) If you use MySQL Software within your organisation and you don't want to risk it falling under the GPL license, you are welcome to purchase a commercial license.

d) Many users opt for the commercial licence simply because under it MySQL AB takes responsibility for its products. Under the GPL licence, there are no warranties or representations from the developer (i.e. from MySQL AB).

So in short, Oracle would have broad powers under which to enforce the GPL, and they could easily extend them (whether correct or not) to bring a court case against companies whether or not the case has any validity. Understand now?

MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[typical]

Ah, but, see, MySQL AB makes its revenue by spreading exactly that FUD.

Yes, you can use MySQL legally in a commercial app without buying a license. You aren't linking to it. However, MySQL says that you *do* need a license. Enough people are going to be scared enough to buy a license. Open source people just see "GPL -- okay, must not be evil" and go ahead and use it.

This is why I use Postgres and avoid the whole ugly thing.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[temojen]

This is why I use Postgres and avoid the whole ugly thing.

Oh? I use it because it's better.