MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

alphadogg writes "Oracle should resolve antitrust concerns over its acquisition of Sun Microsystems by selling open-source database MySQL to a suitable third party, its cofounder and creator Michael 'Monty' Widenius said in a blog post on Monday. Oracle's $7.4 billion acquisition of Sun is currently being held up by an investigation by the European Commission. The Commission's main concern seems to be MySQL, which was acquired by Sun in January 2008 for $1 billion. A takeover by the world's leading proprietary database company of the world's leading open source database company compels the regulator to closely examine the effects on the European market, according to remarks made by Competition Commissioner Neelie Kroes last month. The key objective by Widenius is to find a home outside Oracle for MySQL, where the database can be developed and compete with existing products, including Oracle's, according to Florian Mueller, a former MySQL shareholder who is currently working with Monty Program AB on this matter." Richard Stallman agrees.

Comments

3D?

[clone53421]

Yeah, those 2D parties are shallow and make for thin plots.

Re:3D?

[Bat Country]

The best thing about 3d parties are all the 3d women. All that proprietary "boob-jubbling technology."

Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

[Anonymous Coward]

SCO?

Your input has been noted

[e2d2]

I'll take "Things you should have thought about before selling to Sun" for 1000 Alex

Re:Your input has been noted

[icebike]

Exactly.

He took the money.

It had always been quasi open-source, and free to use, and he sold it to Sun. Now when it is acquired by a company who's only purpose for buying Sun was to kill this product and eat its heart he gets religion?

Re:Your input has been noted

[VGPowerlord]

One of their purposes, not the only purpose. Oracle also wanted to get their grubby mitts on Java.

Actually... with SPARC; Solaris; Java; Oracle 11g; and Oracle Weblogic Suite 11g, Oracle can now control their entire App Server from top to bottom.

Maybe I'm missing something..

[amicusNYCL]

MySQL is open source. Why is there a big argument about who controls it? If whoever is controlling it goes in a direction that people don't like, don't you just fork it? If people really are worried about the future of MySQL, shouldn't there already be a fork?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[indraneil]

There is already a fork that is being worked upon by Monty (who was the founder of MySQL) I suspect the real contention is over the brand MySQL (which has significant mind-share) which was transferred to SUN and will now go to Oracle.
A lot of medium sized companies use MySQL today and have support contracts with who-so-ever owns the brand itself. They I guess are the ones who are worried - choosing another database is often not an option.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Nadaka]

The letter by RMS addresses that question. That being that the commercially licensed version of MySQL funded suns continued development of the GPL'ed MySQL, and oracle would have a conflict of interest in continuing to develop and license a low cost alternative to its high priced core product.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[TheRaven64]

It's GPL'd and requires copyright assignment. That means that whoever owns it can release it under whatever license they like, including using it in proprietary products, while everyone else can only use it if they abide by the terms of the GPL. Although, why anyone still cares about MySQL when there are better, more permissively licensed, alternatives available is beyond me.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[geekmansworld]

The problem is that MySQL the company is a significant contributor to MySQL the project. Personally, I see a lot of value in MySQL, but lately the open-source community's love seems to be shifting to PostgreSQL. So I'm guessing that there's some question as to whether the MySQL project could go it alone without the resources the company provides.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[asdf7890]

Or move over to another F/OSS database. Postgres has outdone mysql for "enterprise" features for many years (anyone else remember mysql people telling you that transactions were something that should be handled outside the database?) with the exception of replication support, and sqlite reportedly outperforms it in its traditional market (few writes but many selects over simple but potentially large structures). There are other options out there. A fork would face the same problem these other options have: mysql, the "official" version where-ever that lives these days, has a large amount of market inertia.

(I'm not trying to grind an anti-mysql axe here, though I do prefer the other options myself depending on circumstances, just pointing out that a fork would only be any good to the market if enough people use it and getting that elusive "enough people" market share might not be easy)

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Nethemas the Great]

In theory that might be a good idea. However, in practice, forks only have two realistic outcomes. Either they're just plain ignored--as is the case with present MySQL forks, or they divide and segregate the user base. The consequences of the later could potentially prove the undoing of the project. Relying upon products with an unstable and uncertain future make management types nervous...

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Icegryphon]

Because if people don't like the fork then someone else will fork it.
So on, and so on, until MySQL is forked so many times people will call it a slut?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Jim Hall]

Here's what RMS said in the letter:

MySQL uses the parallel licensing approach to generate revenue to continue the FLOSS development of the software. If Oracle acquired MySQL, it would then be the only entity able to release the code other than under the GPL. Oracle would not be obligated to diligently sell or reasonably price the MySQL commercial licenses. More importantly, Oracle is under no obligation to use the revenues from these licenses to advance MySQL. In making decisions in these matters, Oracle is facing an obvious conflict of interest - the continued development of a powerful, feature rich free alternative to its core product.

As only the original rights holder can sell commercial licenses, no new forked version of the code will have the ability to practice the parallel licensing approach, and will not easily generate the resources to support continued development of the MySQL platform.

The acquisition of MySQL by Oracle will be a major setback to the development of a FLOSS database platform, potentially alienating and dispersing MySQL's core community of developers. It could take several years before another database platform could rival the progress and opportunities now available to MySQL, because it will take time before any of them attract and cultivate a large enough team of developers and achieve a similar customer base.

So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release. This effectively would make the Oracle fork of MySQL into proprietary or "closed source" software.

And Oracle would likely keep the "MySQL" name, because Oracle really wants that brand recognition in the low-end database market, competing with MS-SQL. So I'd guess a forked F/OSS version of MySQL would need to call themselves something else, losing the name.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Abreu]

What do you mean?

GNU IceCat is as popular as... IceWeasel ...

nevermind

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[reashlin]

is MySQL really an alternative to Oracle?

I mean sure it 'technically' is. But someone likely to use MySQL isnt looking for such an enterprise product such as Oracle and people looking to spend their money on Oracle can't/wont settle for MySQL. I thought this was basically what the EU said anyway.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[mckinnsb]

I would also suspect that there is a great deal of concern over the fact that many web hosting providers offer MySQL as the included database for a cheap, base-level, non-configurable package. Turnover of mindshare in that market seems to be extremely slow -I've noticed the cheaper packages tend to be sold to the technophobic. Many hosting providers will be inclined to stick with MySQL and MySQL support contracts with Oracle. This is part of what Oracle purchased, to be honest, but the EU has the right to examine if this is fair play.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[srw]

So, that's why Mambo has such a huge mindshare in the CMS world?

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[MBGMorden]

Indeed not, but with most open source products there is usually a trend upwards. PostgreSQL is already a better bet towards gaining capabilities rivaling Oracle eventually, but with enough development MySQL could have eventually made it that far too. You can bet now however, that the Oracle controlled MySQL code base will NEVER gain feature parity with the main Oracle DBMS. It'll be basically stuck now as the less featured, less capable freebie that Oracle gives away to customers hoping to get working relationships built up in order to sell them the more expensive product.

Doesn't bother me much - at work they make me use Microsoft SQL Server and at home I stick to PostgreSQL, but still, it's sad to see a project like this end up in such a dead-end position.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[turbidostato]

"So basically, RMS is concerned that Oracle really would fork MySQL, and end the dual-licensing for any future versions they release."

Where have you read that in RMS's letter?

As I read it, RMS is concerned not because Oracle will close future MySQL development but because they will be the only ones that can profit from dual licensing MySQL and they won't do that because it would make it competing against their cash cow. Oracle would be much better served if they allow MySQL to slowly stagnate -and the point is that they can do it since noone else will be able to cash out the dual license path, than if they close the shop allowing for a faster substitution from another open alternative.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[twofishy]

Agree with this. I think though it is interesting to me that he has shown his hand so openly - I wonder if he suspects he's about to loose. Basically Monty made a ton of money selling MySQL to Sun (way more than it was worth) and has considerable vested interest in Oracle being forced to sell MySQL because, I guess, he wants to buy it back again. He has overseen a slew of measures that are designed to keep MySQL alive outside of Oracle including the MariaDB fork and formation the Open Database Alliance to unify all development. However MariaDB isn't getting much traction (and is not all that likely to do so) so getting the MySQL name back would be good - and potentially he could sell it to someone else again an another few years which would be a neat trick. By contrast the former MySQL CEO Marten Mickos - and the ex-head of Sun's database group - not only dismissed concerns over Oracle's ownership of MySQL but also called on the EU to approve Oracle's purchase of Sun. Eliison is on record as saying re MySQL "we are going to increase our rate of investment to that product." It seems to me that owning MySQL is a bit of a win/win for Oracle. It generates decent revenues for Sun and can do the same for Oracle. If they don't own it then they loose customers to open source. if they do then they simply have a low cost alternative to the full Oracle platform.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[BitZtream]

And this is different than MySQL has been for years?

The commercial version of MySQL has always had more features than the GPL version.

It is CURRENTLY stuck as the less featured, less capable freebie that Sun gives away. It sells the more feature rich version.

The situation you describe as a concern is the situation that already exists. Funny part is, when MySQL went this route originally everyone bitched and moaned, RMS included. Now he's promoting it as a requirement for MySQLs survive.

And people continue to follow him ... so sad.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[Anonymous Coward]

the "fork" is mysql with myisam and maria storage engines - what will you do with non transactional database server? the maria is not even crash safe and it might venture into transactional world in 2099.

with regards to contracts - any company that purchase sun will inherit all sun's contracts and will have to honour them - so any current contract holder have no reason to fear.

Re:Maybe I'm missing something..

[davecb]

There isn't a real arguement at all: it's recently come out that a/the objector to MySQL going to Oracle was Microsoft. I strongly suspect it's a put-up job, astroturfing the EC to hurt a competitor.

--dave (who want the deal to complete so he can get more capacity planning gigs) c-b

Bring on the hate

[geekmansworld]

Okay, here goes... Maybe they should sell it to Apple?

Yes, hate me, throw things at me. But Apple DOES love MySQL, it's an essential part of OS X Server. Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product. Also keep in mind that MySQL the commercial product is not necessarily synonymous to MySQL the open-source project.

Unfortunately, MySQL uses the GPL, whereas Apple has always preferred to open-source under the Apache license.

Re:Bring on the hate

[Dynedain]

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing database product.

Ummm.... Filemaker?

Granted it's a horrible POS that makes Access look clean and well-developed, but as someone who has to suffer with using it on a daily basis, it IS a database product.

Re:Bring on the hate

[apokruphos]

Unlike Oracle, IBM and Microsoft, Apple doesn't own an existing useful database product.

Fixed for pedantry. As another person who has to deal with it on a daily basis, the thought of willfully using Filemaker in a development project is sure sign of technical incompetence.

Re:Bring on the hate

[stanleypane]

You're sort of arguing my point for me and trying to disagree at the same time.

I think the *person* that lets that kind of stuff happen is to blame -- not the tool. It sounds like an awful lot of people here are bashing Filemaker because it isn't being used for it's intended purpose. I'm merely making the point that it's the idiot trying to use a hammer to bust up pavement when a jackhammer is more suited to the job.

If you're letting your superiors get away with driving the choice behind inferior tools for a given job, well... can you really blame the tool? Maybe the person in charge of development isn't making their case properly or management is way out of line. But I don't think the tool is to blame in those scenarios.

Neutral 3rd Party? Let's See Here ...

[Anonymous Coward]

MySQL Cofounder Says Oracle Should Sell Database To a Neutral 3d Party

So that leaves us with?

mysql> use companies;
Database changed
mysql> select * from parties where bias = null;
Empty set (0.00 sec)

Hmmm ....

Transactions

[fartrader]

So its true, MySQL still doesn't support Transaction rollbacks.

There is more to it than that

[capt.Hij]

There is more to the project than just the source. First, some of the people are still working for Sun/Oracle. Their expertise is kind of important, and it is not so easy to just pick up the source and start making changes.

The other issue is the documentation. That is not so free. The mysql documentation is considerable and is a tremendous resource. Back in the day, it was the deciding reason that I went with mysql. If I went on purely technical requirements alone I would have likely chosen a different platform.

ONE BILLION DOLLARS, MUHAHAHAH

[ShaggyZet]

Sounds like a good plan. Now if they can only find a neutral 3rd party dumb enough to pay anything close to $1 billion for it. How about Computer Associates, isn't that where bad software goes to die?

Big business kills open source...

[Kate6]

This makes me think of nVidia's purchase of 3dfx. 3dfx (makers of the famous Voodoo series of video cards) were very friendly to the open source community... They played a very pivotal role in the realm of 3D rendering on Linux when it was still in its infancy, contributing significantly to OpenGL. Then nVidia bought them and discontinued its entire product line... And something like 6 months later it was announced that nVidia won the contract to make the graphics chips on the original Microsoft X-Box. Coincidence?

MySQL, by virtue of being an open source product available in a "community" version for free, has become a central part of the business model of countless small businesses. And it's just fallen into the ownership of its biggest closed-source, for-pay competitor. This could potentially have ramifications for the global economy as a whole. Very scary.

Re:Big business kills open source...

[mr_da3m0n]

But 3dfx cards where slow and crappy. They died and nVidia picked up what was left after nVidia and ATI killed them. nVidia has for many years produced the best 3d drivers available for Linux even though they where closed source they where free as beer. Not perfect but nVidia was supporting Linux before it was cool.

Your flawed view of history offends me.

wow

[nomadic]

Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?

Re:wow

[viralMeme]

"Someone paid $1 BILLION for a software company that made maybe a few million in revenue a year, and who already distribute most of the source code for their main product? Why?"

To slowly dilute its market share and ultimately mop up MySQLs customer base ..

MySQL has been accepted because Oracle owns it

[shoppa]

On several occasions I've been able to convince customers that MySQL was good enough but only because Oracle owned it:

Here's an app, I'm using MySQL
You can't use MySQL, we're an Oracle shop
Oracle owns MySQL
Well, then, that's OK then

Is Monte only looking out for himself

[Anonymous Coward]

disclaimer: I work for Sun and know nothing about mysql...

Here's what I don't get, Monte and company sell mysql to Sun for 1 billion dollars.
I assume Monte got a decent portion of that.. I also assume that Monte had to
sign a no compete agreement for that sum of money.

I'm sure Sun would be more that happy to sell back mysql if
the original owners would like to give the $1 billion back.. I'm
guessing they wouldn't.

I would bet Monte wouldn't even give his portion back. Could
this be Monte trying to keep the money he got and try to get
out of a non compete agreement? (if he did indeed sign one).

Yes, I'm bitter... ;-) As the EU holds this up longer, more people
@ Sun will lose jobs over political crap. If Oracle was based out
of the EU this wouldn't have happened. I'm willing to wager if SAP
wasn't based out of the EU, this wouldn't be delayed either...

Re:Like Yogi Berra says

[clone53421]

I like better, "So, this MySQL programmer walks into a bar, goes up to two tables and asks 'Excuse me, may I join you?'"

Saw it in someone's sig here.

Speaking of tables

[ClosedSource]

Everybody leaves the Ark and Moses addresses the animals "Go forth and multiply".

So all the animals go into the forest, but Moses notices two snakes that haven't moved.

"Why don't you go and multiply?", He asks.

One of the snakes answers "We can't, we're Adders!".

So Moses and his sons chop down one of the trees and form it into a rough-hewn table.

He addresses the snakes and says "Here is your log table, now go forth and multiply".

Re:Speaking of tables

[LordKronos]

Moses had an Ark, too?

Re:Speaking of tables

[powerlord]

Moses had an Ark, too?

He was keeping up with the Noahs. ... Or maybe he was just hanging out in his Crib.

Is Oracle more evil than Microsoft?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. I'm confused. Oracle is now evil and Microsoft isn't evil? When did this happen? As a Microsoft hater do I need to hate Oracle now too?

I'm confused. Is this some sort of plot by Bill Gates to divide and conquer? What next!?

At least Steve Jobs is still okay. ...or is he?

Re:Held up?

[kthejoker]

The transaction itself doesn't have to be held up, but if the EU rules it violates anti-trust, they won't be allowed to do business in the EU. Kind of a mood-killer, if you will.

The problem for Oracle...

[TemporalBeing]

...is that if they keep it, it'll create Antitrust issues for them. So the suggestion is to sell it.

Except, that's isn't exactly a good idea right now either. After all, they sold it to Sun for $1 Billion USD. What would it say if it Oracle/Sun sold it for less - even $900 Million USD? That MySQL wasn't worth $1 Billion USD; which would not be good PR for the F/OSS community, likely run afoul of Antitrust issues (for the PR reasons - especially if Oracle/Sun went - "see it mustn't have been all that good since we couldn't get what we paid for it"), but at least Oracle/Sun would get a tax write off on the difference.

So then, why not kill two birds with one stone - spin MySQL off as its own company. Make it a non-profit (MySQL Foundation) or something; keep a seat or two of the board, and let the community fill the rest. Oracle could get very good PR for doing so too.

Re:postgres people suck

[Just Some Guy]

I honestly do not understand why some people persist in pimping postgres.

Well, a lot of us are happy with the idea of a database that, you know, works. That doesn't silently discard data. That doesn't make you choose between performance and ACID. That doesn't pull crap like insisting that the wire protocol is licensed under the GPL. That sort of stuff.

I remember 10 years ago, postgres was a ghost project -- no updates/maintenance. the entire fucking world adopted mysql except for the postgres-obsessed.

Good point. Guess I'll roll back my desktop to E16 on Slink to comply with your state-of-a-decade-ago fetish.

Re:Who cares what Widenius & Stallman think?

[BitZtream]

What actions are those? Make small fortune selling it to someone then bitching about what they did with it?

In cause you didn't notice while you were writing it just now, that ideal neutral third party did EXACTLY what he's complaining about.

There is no neutral third party in business, the idea is silly in and of itself. Software is a tool and owning the code is an asset, both of which will be used to make the most money possible, ESPECIALLY in a public traded company where making the share holders money IS the priority, by law.

If he really didn't expect something like this to happen eventually, he's simply retarded and should be hospitalized.

We know thats not the case, so we must assume he's just a whiney little bitch.