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

MicroracleSoft

[ExE122]

O'Grady said Oracle could benefit from MySQL in the way that IBM has from its acquisition of Gluecode

This analyst is obviously a genius. Who knew that buying out all your competition would benefit your company?

MySQL was created for low volume applications which don't need all the excessive functionality and optimization. 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. The article mentions that Oracle has already bought out Sleepycat and InnoDB and now is planning move to take over JBoss. Do we really need to wait until all the competition is dead and gone before we realize they are monopolizing the market?

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?

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.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[Anonymous Coward]

Open Source MySQL would only be available under the GPL right? Now how could commercial users use MySQL in such a situation, if they can't put their own code under the GPL?

Christof Wittig has written a very interesting paper on the MySQL business model and he did post some interesting comments recently:

http://www.people4objects.org/

I think it's a very good sign that MySQL feels strong enough to stay independant. It suggests that open source is stronger than Oracle.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[gnuLNX]

"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."

This is totaly FUD.

The GPL does not enforce "external" programs to fall under the GPL. It is perfectly legal for non GPL code to "USE" GPL code as longs as it does not link directly to the code or add any exsisting extensions to it.

If your software embeddeds a MySQL database then you have to purchase a commercial license. However, it is perfectly legal for anyone to use a mysql database without releasing any code under the GPL.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[CastrTroy]

Just because your software uses something that's GPL, doens't mean that you have to release all your source code. If you have an app which accesses an opensource database, or is hosted on an opensource web server, then you are not required to release your code. If you decide to release/create a database app or a webserver, and use the code from MySQL or Apache, then you are bound by the GPL. Simply using an open source project, even writing code that accesses an open source project, does not bind you to releasing your code under the GPL. If that were the case, all software coded on linux would have to be Open source.

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?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

As long as there's a semi-official version of MySQL that's kept up to date (just without the Real Database(TM) features), any fork would have a difficult time surviving. Plus they couldn't call it "MySQL" or Oracle would come down on them like wrath from heaven.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

Why? You could take a public defender and beat Oracle every single time.

Public Defenders are for criminal cases. AFAIK, the court will not appoint one for a civil disagreement. There is also the massive expense for a company to find and prepare evidence for their defense. Since the GPL is hinged on very technical matters, Oracle could easy keep the case in the court for a LONG time and bleed a company dry trying to defend themselves. Worse yet, a judge may actually agree with Oracle due to difficulty in understanding the technical issues at hand. Which means that the case would be held up even more by appeals.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[AKAImBatman]

That is a little tricky, but i'm sure it wouldn't take long to for someone to write a library so that nobody ever has to use MYSQL's library.

Oracle could merely do with that project what MySQL did to the LGPLed JDBC driver: Buy them out and relicense before the project is fully compatible. RMS would then hail them as true heros for relicensing under the GPL rather than the LGPL.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[undercanopy]

Hard to believe that they have gotten so popular in the open source community with such restrictions in place.

I'm actually kind of surprised that debian still includes mysql with such a restrictive license. Or is it allowed because; you can use mysql for free (beer) so long as you keep your app free (speech)?

Re:MicroracleSoft

[lewiscr]

While OSS alternatives do exist, migration is non-trivial. Particularly when you've been drinking the MySQL koolaid. My day job is a MySQL shop. Our code was written to run fast using MySQL, not an ACID database. Transactions were not available, and were not designed for. Rewritting all the code that does multi-table joins in code instead of in SQL (because that the only way to make MySQL fast) will take a lot of time.

The time it will take to migrate won't kill us, but it will cost us customers. Since we just started making a profit, it's a very big concern.

In my defense, nobody in the basement knew any better. MySQL is still a lot better than the flat binary files we were using. If I could rewrite, MySQL wouldn't be a consideration. But that's not a viable business option as long as MySQL is available.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[CrazedWalrus]

ODBC?

from http://www.unixodbc.org/ --
"Also; ALL unixODBC development is and will be distributed under GPL or LGPL. The LGPL on libs will ensure that commercial solutions will be able to utilize unixODBC."

Emphasis mine.

Re:MicroracleSoft

[lewiscr]

In Oracle, you'd:
SELECT t1.id, t1.name, t2.id, t2.name, t3.id, t3.name
    FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 ON t1.id = t2.fk_t1_id
                    LEFT JOIN t3 ON t2.id = t3.fk_t2_id
  WHERE t1.name = $my_user;

In MySQL that's slow. It's faster to:
SELECT t1.id, t1.name FROM t1 WHERE t1.name = $my_user;
SELECT t2.id, t2.name FROM t2 WHERE t2.fk_t1_id = $t1_id;
SELECT t3.id, t3.name FROM t3 WHERE t3.fk_t2_id = $t2_id;

In Oracle that's slow.

Obviously, this is a simple example. But that's exactly how we load trees of objects. The associated INSERT/UPDATE statements to save the objects back to the database are even slower. At the time, the benchmarks said the speed optimization was worth while. I didn't know the maintence headache it would cause.

Refactoring the fast MySQL version into a fast Oracle version takes a good understanding of what the original code is trying to accomplish. Understanding is harder to acheive spread out like that.

These days, there are good Object-Relational Mapping tools. They were a bit harder to come by when we started the project (ie, too much money). It would be much simplier to refactor all the code to use a good ORM tool than to port to Oracle. That is a project I'm working on, since it can be done one class at a time instead of requiring an entire port.

I'll leave the rant about MySQL's stance on transaction (prior to InnoDB) for a different thread. Suffice it to say, we drank that koolaid too. Transactions are nearly impossible to refactor into code that was never designed for them.

Please No...

[RiscIt]

I am NOT buying larry a new boat.

PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[tcopeland]

...from these things since no one entity owns it. I'm running a Jabber server with PostgreSQL as the data store and it's been quite solid... good times.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Tweekster]

do you think so? I bet you could easily hire aware the developers of that project... If the key developers are gone, well development is halted... yes others can pick up where they left behind, and in 6months some development will start again by people that dont have the intimate knowledge of the system or the same set of skills. you could cripple most projects with that method

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[AKAImBatman]

Except that PostgreSQL is pretty darn stable at this point. There's not much that's absolutely necessary to the future of the database. (Unlike MySQL which is in the process of getting their act together to make it a Real Database(TM).) The development that they're doing now is simply making PostgreSQL more and more of a competitor to Oracle for large, enterprise databases. If Oracle hired away the developers, they'd gain maybe six months to a year before someone needs to scratch an itch and pulls the project back on track.

Re:PostgreSQL seems to be immune...

[Bob Uhl]

If the key developers are gone, well development is halted... yes others can pick up where they left behind, and in 6months some development will start again by people that dont have the intimate knowledge of the system or the same set of skills. you could cripple most projects with that method

Of course, as How PostgreSQL Rose to Fame documents, PostgreSQL lay dormant for about two years and was picked up by a mostly-new set of developers. And it seems to be doing pretty well; no doubt MySQL could survive in a similar fashion.

Of course, my druthers would be for PostgreSQL to take over for MySQL, but that's just because I consider it a better database. It's conceivable that someday MySQL will be better. Although, quite frankly, I doubt it.

This space is available for purchase

[MrPeavs]

My heart skipped a beat, I am glad they didn't.

In one of my former jobs, they were looking for a database system for HR, accounting, inventory and production related stuff. We were looking at JDEdwards and Oracle, both came to our company to present. JDEdwards blew us away, like they actually wanted us as a client. Oracle came in and half assed it, like they couldn't care if they got us or not.

We ended up holding back because there were talks of Oracle and Peoplesoft to buy out JDEdwards. Eventually, the Peoplesoft deal went through and we ended up purchasing JDEdwards as they claimed we would get full support. Shortly after I left the cocmpany, Oracle gobbled up Peoplesoft.

I don't hear to many good things about Oracle as a company and I don't think too highly of them when they just buy out the competition. They are becoming more like Microsoft, sort of.

I think this means good things for MySQL, it is going to get them more press and more help because of it. They have had a great and free package for years now. With Oracle wanting to buy them out, it just means that Oracle is finally scared of them, they are doing something right!

Re:This space is available for purchase

[symbolic]

If I were a knowledgeable player in the development of MySQL, I'd be laying down plans to start a foundation that will step in and pick up the open source development (forking if necessary) the minute any sale occurs.

Re:This space is available for purchase

[MrPeavs]

Yeah, though I am sure someone would've stepped up and done that if the sale had gone through.

As someone pointed out already, since it is under GLP. There is nothing Oracle could do about a fork. The software is open source, so a group could pick it up and continue developing for it. Much like StarOffice and OpenOffice. We use StarOffice here at work for some users. With my limited knowledge of both StarOffice and OpenOffice, I think I like OpenOffice better actually. I would assume that MySQL would head the same way, so Oracle couldn't exactly buy out the competition. Though, with them being a big company with money to throw around, I am sure they would try some legal stuff to lessen that kind of stuff.

Oh well, we don't have to worry about it, for now at least.

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.

Re:Not For Sale

[cmdr_beeftaco]

I am starting a paypal collection box to make a competing bid. If enough of you contribute than I will attempt to out-bid Larry. If each slashdot userid contributes $100 USD we can make a very loud statement that free software should be free, unless someone tries to buy it and then it's really freaking expensive but we will buy it anyways and pretend it's free. Of course if not enough money is collected, at least we tried and I can buy that ipod I always wanted.

Bingo

[Ritz_Just_Ritz]

The cost to buy out these little "free" alternatives is statistical noise in the balance sheet Larry Ellison/Oracle. So they buy the company, patent any IP they think might be useful, and then put development on ice while "their top people" study it (Raiders of the Lost Ark style).

Re:Bingo

[CastrTroy]

There probably wouldn't be anything to patent. Since MySQL is open source, all the IP has been in the public eye for many years. This pretty much rules out the idea that any of it is patentable.

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.

They could kill it.

[IAAP]

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

They could let it just die. As in, stop supporting it, stop adding code, stop fixing bugs, etc.... just leave it as it is until it becomes irrelevent because obsolescence.

Re:They could kill it.

[inter alias]

I believe the non-compete clauses in work contracts that are common in the US are illegal in sweden (mysql AB is swedish).

Imagine this scenario:

* oracle tells recently bought mysql "don't improve mysql"
* mysql ab employees are pissed off because they like their db
* novell/redhat thinks mysql is important for their linux sales
* they hire said grumpy mysql employees to work on the GPL version

== mysql development continues and oracle just wasted a lot of money.

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:They could kill it.

[budgenator]

if your running MySQL and need transactions, that's provided by the berkely DB, supported by Sleepycat, or InnoDB supported by Innobase, both were bought by Oracle. If Oracle is seeking to kill MySQL, then it's dead man walking right now. However if Oracle's intentions is to aquire MySQL, make a few modifications and have it compatable enough with oracle that they can use it for the entry level database that can be a step towards a full oracle installation, it doesn't matter because they can still contribute code to MySQL. How many MSSQL instalations happen because somebody outgrows access?

Re:They could kill it.

[Senzei]

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

...and how long did we wait for x.org to get moving while xfree86 did piss all for the linux world? Why would this be any different?

If oracle bought and canceled mysql you would see a number of people try to improve it with five hundred million cludgey add-ons. Eventually in about two or three years frustration over that mess would hit critical mass and someone would organize something to fix it, after most people had run out of steam for starting their own projects on it.

Re:They could kill it.

[PhotoGuy]

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

But can they fork the InnoDB stuff? I got the impression seemed to be more restrictive license-wise, as well as having more enterprise grade features.

If they can, there may be hope for MySQL. Otherwise, it's another victim of the Great Database Consolidation (i.e. Takeover), of Oracle.

I firmly believe they're not "softening their image" or "supporting open source", but quashing all non-commercial competition for a few million bucks here and there.

Re:They could kill it.

[kbahey]

That is the best outcome.

However, what the ex-MySQL/DBD/InnoBase/Oracle people cannot do is sell non-GPL licenses of the MySQL/InnoDB/DBD and make that a business model.

They can still do private modifications for customers on the GPL base code, but those customers cannot relicense those under a proprietary license.

That is the different of having MySQL own the code (which is today's scenario) vs. Oracle owning it and the developers leaving.

In both cases there is an impact, but less so on the open source community than on private licensees.

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.

Business factors in OSS Database Companies

[andrewzx1]

Here's a research piece I recently authored which details the business aspects of OSS database companies like MySQL, SleepyCat, DB4Objects, InterBase, Genezzo, and several others: http://www.tampatech.com/services/business_factors _in_oss_database_companies.htm - Andrew

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:MySQL is not a danger; PostgreSQL may be

[QuietLagoon]

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.

http://www.mysql.com/why-mysql/case-studies/

PokerRoom.com Powers High Transaction Online Poker System with MySQL and HP .... 12,000 players occupy the poker tables. Since each bet, each played hand and other data are recorded, the database often handles 2,000 transactions per second.

Los Alamos National Labs Relies on MySQL to Scale with 7 Terabytes of Data.

Lycos Europe Reduces TCO by 90% by Migrating to MySQL.

Lycos Europe migrated all company portal services to MySQL, displacing one of the leading proprietary databases in the market. Replacing their existing database solution with MySQL resulted in more than a 90% savings. Lycos Europe today has approximately 1 terabyte of data handled by 100 MySQL servers. At peak traffic up to 25,000 concurrent users are online and 1 Gb of data per second is delivered to users.

Cox Communications Powers Massive Data Warehouse with MySQL To maintain optimum performance and customer-service levels, Cox has developed a huge data warehousing application. At the heart of this business-critical system is a 2-billion row MySQL database.

etc.....

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.

Re:MySQL AB makes its money on FUD

[pooly7]

Actually, if you link your app against the mysql client librairy which is GPL, you are entitled to disclose the source... Hence the commercial license for people using MySQL with proprietary software.

Re:Foxpro

[mspohr]

Microsoft hasn't killed FoxPro but they have prevented it from becoming a competitor to Access. Prior to the purchase, FoxPro was on track to eat Access market share. It was faster, more stable, and had more functionality. They haven't killed FoxPro but have kept it in its place (running legacy specialized applications).

Re:How does this affect me?

[inotocracy]

Oh, you don't work for Microsoft. No sir.

It's not dead yet!

[AmazingRuss]

Microsoft has brought Foxpro light years from what it started as...and it would probably have replaced Access, if not for the fact that everybody saw MS buy Foxpro way back when and decided that Foxpro was dead.

After more than 10 years of massively extending and improving the product, it looks like MS is finally throwing in the towel against this self fulfilling prophecy.

IMHO, this premature burial syndrome is as much a threat to MySql as Oracle deliberately killing it.

Re:Patents?

[ckaminski]

If they could, they already would.

How exactly are you going to defeat Postgres 8.01, downloaded umpteen-hundred-thousand times ( 8, at least, by me ). You can't. You may stop future development on it, but at what cost? You can't get monetary remuneration from the authors of any significant value, so why bother? If somepgsqlvendor.com starts making a billion a year, well, that's an entirely different situation altogether, but then it'll be Oracle v somepgsqlvendor.com and not Oracle v pgsql.