Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM to Oracle - You Can't Buy Open Source

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the hee dept.

mrops writes "CNET has up a short article about IBM's reaction to Oracle's recent acquisitions. From the article: 'Handy was responding to comments made by Oracle CEO Ellison to the Financial Times, where he said that he wanted Oracle to control a 'full stack' of software, including the Linux operating system. If Oracle did try to buy a Linux distributor, such as Red Hat or Novell, Handy said 'we'd stick to our strategy of having two or more independent distributors and have to wait and see what happens.'" It should be pointed out, as noted in yesterday's Slashback, that Ellison has no intentions of purchasing Red Hat.

24 of 102 comments (clear)

  1. Return Serve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Oracle to IBM: No, but we can buy the people.

  2. Headline makes the wrong assumption by $RANDOMLUSER · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oracle doesn't want to buy Open Source, they want to buy installed bases.

    --
    No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
    1. Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption by Ctrl+Alt+De1337 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      This is important. They want the installed base and the community. Oracle certainly has the resources to make a new distro from scratch if they wanted, but it takes time to build up a loyal following and by extension an installed base. Certainly a lot of people would try a brand-new Oracle distro, but who knows how many would stick with it if their favorite package(s) was/were not available? Larry likes control, so basing a new one off someone else's distro is right out.

    2. Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption by misleb · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On the other hand, an owner like Oracle could kill a loyal following. Especially if they lost the focus that Novell has in making a solid enterprise desktop (as well as all the other little projects Novell has going). Why would Oracle care about any of that stuff? I know I would stop using a distro if Oracle bought it.

      -matthew

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    3. Re:Headline makes the wrong assumption by gstoddart · · Score: 3, Funny
      Oracle doesn't want to buy Open Source, they want to buy installed bases.

      All your installed bases are belong to us?

      Doesn't have the same ring to it; it'll never catch on. :-P
      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  3. Why not? by RingDev · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Why can't a company buy an open source project? Bring the developers on board, retain controlling rights, enforce licensing, etc... All OS means is that the code is published. Contrary to (supposed) popular believe, software, in and of itself, has no desire to be 'free.'

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
    1. Re:Why not? by 'nother+poster · · Score: 2, Informative

      The licensing that the open source software exists under says that everyone else can simply take that code and do what they want as long as they provide the source. There is no way for Oracle to take it away is what they were saying. I don't think they are trying to do that anyway. I think, like many others, that they simply want to step into the game with an installed base to get an advantage.

    2. Re:Why not? by sahuaro · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, for one thing the GPL would make that difficult, but if the existing license is like the BSD license than I suppose it could happen. A little like what apple did, yes?

      sahuaro

      --
      Phoenix Linux Users Group
      Penguins in the desert
    3. Re:Why not? by tdvaughan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      One of the most important factors to an Open Source project's success is the community around it. Piss off the community and the project will be forked. Bug reports, feature requests, forums and mailing lists will dry up or dissolve into flamewars while the forked project takes developer interest away and eventually becomes incompatible with the original.

    4. Re:Why not? by rthille · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it is GPL, but the copyright is retained by a small number of people who are willing to sell their rights to it, then it can be taken closed-source. Of course, anyone can fork from the last GPL'd version. That's essentially what happened with SSH if I understand that correctly.

      --
      Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
    5. Re:Why not? by Cyclops · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Contrary to (supposed) popular believe, software, in and of itself, has no desire to be 'free.'
      Software has no desire. Software is a set of specific rules that results in a specific and predictable effect. The code of such software, as was written, is covered by copyright, and software has copyright licenses.

      Free Software, contrary to what you seem to believe, is about providing users with certain freedoms:
      0. the freedom to run the program for any purpose
      1. the freedom to study the program and modify it according to your needs
      2. the freedom to distribute copies
      3. the freedom to publish modified versions

      So who has desire for theses Freedoms? Software? Don't be laughable. It's PEOPLE who desire it!

      Any software license that removes theses freedoms from users is disrespecting them. It's a license written with control in mind. Control of the user and what he may or may not be able to do.

      I for one, only use Free Software (for quite a long time, now), but in the beggining I thought only the quality of "open source" mattered. Then I learned better...
    6. Re:Why not? by Homology · · Score: 2, Interesting
      If it is GPL, but the copyright is retained by a small number of people who are willing to sell their rights to it, then it can be taken closed-source. Of course, anyone can fork from the last GPL'd version. That's essentially what happened with SSH if I understand that correctly.

      SSH was under a freer license than GPL, but did use a GPL library. Today OpenSSH (a derivative of SSH) contains no GPL code. Have a look at the OpenSSH history

  4. Of course not by Billosaur · · Score: 2
    [IBM senior vice president Steve] Mills said Oracle has stuck to industry standards but does not have a long track record of involvement in open-source communities.

    That would mean becoming innovative, opening themselves up to new ideas, new ways of thinking. Can't have that! Then they might actually be able to compete with Microsoft.

    Hmmmmm... my sarcasm detector is going off...

    --
    GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
  5. Take Ellison with a grain of salt... by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 2, Interesting

    When Ellison says "We're not interested in RedHat / Novell right now," he means RIGHT NOW. Share prices rise on acquisition news and fall when those acquisitions fail to materialize. If he says "We're not buying RedHat," then the recent gains RedHat has seen because of the oracle takeover talk will probably go away (AFAIK there are no other suitors.)

  6. Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon mgt by stanwirth · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Both Oracle and IBM have got it wrong. If you've ever tried to install:

    • DB2
    • Oracle
    • WebSphere
    on a RedHat or SuSE , the first thing you notice is...both Oracle and IBM tried to make the installation easy by putting a shitty JAVA GUI on the thing. Two problems with this: it forces you to have to install JAVA and X windows eithier on your server (in the DMZ? I don't THINK so!) or to have to install just the X windows client bits on your sever along with Java...and then bring in a laptop that you attach to your server on a temporary network while the network is offline, yada yada yada....

    WHY NOT JUST WRITE A FRICKIN' RPM???? HUH? LIKE, ALONG WITH A PROPER DAEMON SCRIPT SO YOU CAN START AND STOP ORACLE, DB2, WebSphere, Etc Etc Etc in a single command-line, in the STANDARD LINUX WAY???? D'ya THINK????? DUH!

    A couple of people have tried to write an open-source RPM/daemon script suite around these packages, but of course -- then a new version of the proprietary DB/web service comes out.

    And both Oracle and IBM are rolling in dough, why would anyone do this for them for free?

    If a sysadmin got the freedom to run Open Source anything, they'll switch to PhP/MySQL and/or PostGreSQL (depending on whether they need triggers or not) soon enough ANYWAY

    Oracle could drastically increase its install base in the Linux community just by demonstrating some rudimentary competence in the area of standard Linux server systems software management.

  7. Re:Oracle, IBM need to improve install and daemon by jobsagoodun · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Not true

    I've scripted (without GUI) installation of DB2, Websphere & Orrible no problemo just by reading the fine manual. You could too.

  8. The business model they have in mind... by ArrowFlynn · · Score: 2, Informative

    Oracle, like IBM, Sun and others are still all experimenting with the ways that they can make FOSS development work for them. Oracle is not likely to try to "own" any distribution of Linux, there's no profit or future in that. Instead they, like everyone else, want to set the open standards. Leading on open standards is leading the competiton. Rebecca Henderson, Professor of Management at MIT, has a a great talk on the new hyper-competitive world of open source. You can view it for free through MIT's Open Course Archive: http://mitworld.mit.edu/video/274/

  9. Oracle buys IBM by hackwrench · · Score: 2, Funny

    Problem solved. No I don't know the relative values of the companies.

    1. Re:Oracle buys IBM by Kadin2048 · · Score: 5, Informative
      Not sure if that was a joke, but just in case it wasn't:

      Oracle Corp. (Nasdaq: ORCL)
      • Market Cap $73.07 Billion USD,
      • revenue $13.41 B
      • gross profit $9.15 B
      • Employees 49,872


      International Business Machines Corp. (NYSE: IBM)
      • Market Cap $128.6 Billion USD,
      • revenue $91.13 B
      • gross profit $36.53 B
      • Employees 341,750

      So if either company were to buy the other, it would be IBM acquiring Oracle, but I think Oracle's probably too big for them to swallow in any event.

      Oracle is certainly the more profitable company though, in terms of profit/revenue, but then again they don't really manufacture anything, while IBM still makes and sells a lot of stuff.
      --
      "Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
    2. Re:Oracle buys IBM by the_womble · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well its not unknown for companies to buy bigger ones, but that happens when the management of the bigger company are screwing up so badly that shareholders are willing to sell for shares in the new combined business.

      Buying something like Oracle would also not fit in with IBM's strategy of expanding services - their last big acquisition was a consultancy, and I bet their next one will be as well.

  10. Apache Geronimo by JimmyFo · · Score: 2, Informative

    Didn't IBM just buy this opensource project: http://geronimo.apache.org/ and make it http://sourceforge.net/powerbar/websphere/? 1) Take open source software 2) Brand it 3) Profit?

  11. From the desk of Larry Ellison by PenguinBoyDave · · Score: 4, Funny

    From: Larry Ellison
    To: IBM

    SUBJ: Your note to us about Open Source

    Dear IBM,

    Piss off. I have two Mig jets and a really big-ass boat. I can buy anything I want.

    Oraclistically Yours,

    Larry

    --
    I'm not a troll, but I play one on Slashdot.
  12. Bssst... Thank you for playing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    "All OS means is that the code is published"

    You are only 1/10th correct.

    Wrong- Even Microsoft admitted this was wrong.

    Now go read up and become an educated Slashbot.
    http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

    1) Free Distibution
    2) Source code
    3) Derived works
    4) Integrity of The Author's Source Code
    5) No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
    6) No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
    7) Distribution of License
    8) License Must Not Be Specific to a Product
    9) License Must Not Restrict Other Software
    10)License Must Be Technology-Neutral

  13. IBM is right by thbb · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The point of IBM, which seems inescapable, is that any software that has been released as OSS can't be reverted back to an non-OSS business model: as some version of the source and some user base exist on the market, any company with IBM's-like muscle can branch a free version and make it evolve anytime they want.

    This follows the predicate: Any useful software is bound to become free (as in beer) once the cost of its development has been amortized. The free (as in speech) software movement is not much more than the social expression of this basic economical fact. Some still imperfect demonstration.