Slashdot Mirror


Oracle Responds To MySQL Purchase Concerns

Luke has no name writes "Yesterday we discussed MySQL founder Monty Widenius's objections to the acquisition of MySQL by Oracle. Today, Oracle released a statement to address some of these issues. Among their commitments, Oracle says they intend to continue releasing MySQL under the GPL, allow vendors to produce 'any-license' third-party engines, maintain the Reference Manual, invest millions into the product, and create a 'customer advisory board.' The pledges are still not enough for some, however."

21 of 156 comments (clear)

  1. Makes sense by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If you think about it makes sense for Oracle to continue developing MySQL, since this is like Nissan and Infiniti where the customer is provided with a high-end product and a low-end product. Oracle gets to offer service for both, recognising that not everyone wants to have to deal with the Oracle database product, either due to cost or needs. At the same time for customers growing past what MySQL is good at, Oracle can then offer them an upgrade path to their premium product.

    --
    Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    1. Re:Makes sense by herring0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Along the same line as the high-end/low-end thing Oracle does have a 'low-end' Oracle database (Oracle XE) but it's never really gotten any kind of following or use that I have seen. So I could definitely understand their interest in providing an entry-level system with their name attached.

      I've not understood the complaints about sharing the market space. Anyone running full-blown Oracle database systems will be well and truly beyond MySQL. Aside from that, try and get some PHB to understand that MySQL is in any way comparable to Oracle.

      On the plus side- if Oracle can actually provide an easy to use path to migrate from MySQL to Oracle or to provide some kind of abstraction layer that would let you use MySQL-backed applications with Oracle I would cheer them to no end.

      And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing. So sorry, you sold your rights to it. Fork it and start over if you really care that much.

    2. Re:Makes sense by Penguinisto · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not really seeing it... I mean, they already have (fairly) low-end versions of Oracle already out there (starting with "Express"), which are basically stripped versions of the high-end products.

      What would they gain from replacing those with a product based on a fairly incompatible and radically different codebase? You're supposed to up-sell customers, which MySQL likely won't do very well.

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    3. Re:Makes sense by rutledjw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And as for the founder's (and the founder's buddy referenced in the article) concerns about the future of the product then he shouldn't have sold the damn thing. So sorry, you sold your rights to it. Fork it and start over if you really care that much.

      This is an interesting point. It IS open source and can be forked. How much work in improving the DB occurs within Sun (and soon Oracle) presently? Aside from ignoring new features which are introduced to the open source version, how much damage will ignoring the code base really cause?

      I would assume (possibly dangerous) that most MySQL users are savvy enough to use a different flavor of the MySQL code base if the one they're currently on gets stale. I don't see Oracle introducing iterative improvements for MySQL and certainly little or nothing which will be under an open license. I CAN see them layering other features on top which don't become a part of the code base. Not sure why they would pursue such a path unless they want to poke at SQL Server some...

      --

      Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
    4. Re:Makes sense by Locke2005 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's not just like Nissan/Infity. Expensive cars cost more to build. The marginal cost for software is damn near zero. Oracle could easily go after the low-end market by offering a crippled version of the Oracle database. The only reason they have to buy MySQL is to kill it as a competitor because it is cutting into their sales. They certainly aren't going to incorporate any MySQL technology into their bread-and-butter product line.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  2. Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed by rahvin112 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The original founders of MySQL are using the merger talks in the EU along with SAP and Microsoft to harm competition. The founders goal is to have the code licensed under the BSD so they can take the code they develop private. Monty and Florian have NEVER been friends of the GPL. Don't believe a word they say.

    1. Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed by mcoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, you could always switch to PostgreSQL. Once the switch is made, you never have to look back.

    2. Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed by sribe · · Score: 4, Informative

      groklaw quotes from his submission to the EC, pointing out things that he had specifically denied previous to this disclosure.

    3. Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed by ThePhilips · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That is nothing new. The problem is that Monty now found himself on the other side of fence and he is faced with the same choice as MySQL AB customers were in past: get a free GPLed MySQL fork or buy a license for a commercial MySQL variant.

      GPL played the evil trick that you can't link commercial applications against libmysql*. IOW, to develop proprietary closed-source MySQL based product, you have to buy a license for the commercial fork of MySQL. And that is to my understanding the matter of his objection. And it is a rather valid objection, since Oracle now has a way to kill completely (not only Monty but) whole commercial infrastructure surrounding MySQL .

      On one side I'm sadistically happy that Monty himself got the taste of it. On another side I also recognize that building something like MySQL completely open source might have been impossible and some revenue stream is much required. (Even much touted PostgreSQL, thanks to BSD license, has quite a number of proprietary applications around it.)

      --
      All hope abandon ye who enter here.
    4. Re:Monty and Florian want MySQL to be BSD licensed by lewiscr · · Score: 4, Informative

      I've switched to PostgreSQL, and I must say that I enjoy looking back. It's like gawking at an accident on the side of the road. Reading the MySQL articles is a guilty pleasure now.

  3. Fork? by ickleberry · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Would it not be a good idea to fork MySQL at this point? rather than relying on Oracle who pledge (which is not legally binding) to continue supporting MySQL and giving it away for free. Even though there is no compelling reason for them to unless they plan to assimilate it into their outrageously priced commercial database packages

    Big companies like Oracle are just not to be trusted, any embracing they do must be seen as simply the first step to extending and extinguishing. It would be completely naive to think otherwise

    1. Re:Fork? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are a number of MySQL forks, one of which is being operated by Monty's company, under the GPL. They don't seem to need BSD for that.

    2. Re:Fork? by Col.+Klink+(retired) · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Anyone can fork at anytime. The problem for Monty is that his fork would have to stay in the GPL. He isn't concerned that Oracle will stop maintaining MySQL or stop releasing it under the GPL. It's not Oracle that wants to close the source on MySQL, that's what Monty wants to do for himself. The problem is, he already sold the copyright and now only has access to the GPLed version.

      --

      -- Don't Tase me, bro!

    3. Re:Fork? by Sir_Lewk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How about waiting to see what happens, then forking if needed? There really is no reason to fork ahead of time, all it will accomplish is fragmenting the userbase and cause tension in the community.

      Honestly I'm getting tired of all of this "OMG Oracle bought MySQL, the sky is falling!!!" nonsense. If the sky does start to fall, then fork. Otherwise just stop, it's getting annoying.

      --
      "linux is just DOS with a UNIX like syntax" -- Galactic Dominator (944134)
  4. Monty's ethical problem by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Monty has been paid somewhere north of 100 Million dollars in the MySQL purchase by Sun. Now, having been paid, Monty wants MySQL back for his business - without returning the money. And Monty has no problem with FUD-ing the GPL to get what he wants, even if the GPL provided half of the business method (dual-licensing) that made him rich.

    Now, having been paid, I would think that an ethical position for Monty would be to allow MySQL's new owners to have what they paid for.

    We can all use MySQL with no problem whatsoever under the GPL. With proprietary clients and Free clients, with no problem. An application across the network interface from the server, speaking a published and standard protocol, is not a derivative work. The GPL wouldn't apply to such an application. There is a GPL-ed client library that has to be replaced with a non-GPL version, but that version has existed for a decade.

    Monty is free to do his business with the GPL version if he wishes. But it seems he wants to have his cake and eat it.

    Bruce

  5. Pledges not enough for some... by geoffrobinson · · Score: 3, Interesting

    no kidding. If you are unreasonable enough or you have absolutely no trust in Oracle, nothing will get rid of your concerns.

    The source code being under the GPL currently so you could fork it if needed (what the GPL was intended for in the first place) isn't enough for some people.

    --
    Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
  6. Why bother with MySQL? by sproketboy · · Score: 4, Informative

    I know I'm going to be modded down for this but why bother with MySQL at all? There are other better free databases out there. MySQL is still not even ANSI 92 compliant yet.

    1. Re:Why bother with MySQL? by Yvan256 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because 99.99% of the web hosting companies offer LAMP setups?

  7. Why Not Reserve Judgment? by CodeBuster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It appears that Oracle has now made some public promises with regard to MySQL so couldn't we return the favor and give them some time and see how it goes before allowing the GPL "true believers" tar and feather them? If any company that touches a GPL product gets burnt, no matter what their intentions, then doesn't that ultimately hurt rather than help the cause of free software?

  8. Re:Under the GPL, whats the problem? by Bruce+Perens · · Score: 4, Informative

    It sounds as if you could be a little confused about this. MySQL owned the complete copyright to the MySQL server. So, they could commercially license it as well as provide it under the GPL. Most GPL projects do not have this capability, because no one entity owns the entire copyright and the aggregate of all copyright holders do not work together to dual-license.

    So, Sun bought the rights to commercially license MySQL, and to enforce the GPL on those who do not have commercial licenses. Now Oracle will have that.

  9. Re:MySQL is under Duel license - all contributions by CrashandDie · · Score: 3, Funny

    Duel license? When there is a conflict in git/svn/cvs during a merge, shoot the other developer.

    I like it.