Expecting Oracle to pay 1 Billion and then let it out of their control? Doensn’t sound likely. Should Sun pay it (reduction of price)? Doesn’t sound likely. Who?

As Carlo points out, Oracle is as good as it probably gets in putting the Billion into the equation and acquiring MySQL.

“What troubles me is Oracle’s reluctance to say what they’re planning. I can imagine scenarios where Oracle’s control of MySQL would be good for both competition and Free Software. So no, I’m not opposed in principle to Oracle controlling MySQL, if they provide some assurance that they won’t simply keep the project in suspended animation.”

I couldn’t agree more. It is worth noting, however, that the only veiled statements that they have made
seem to indicate that they plan on driving *more* money and development into MySQL. 4 years ago I would
have found that statement to be very dubious (at best) but considering what they’ve done with InnoDB since
the Innobase aquisition, I no longer have a true foundation for that belief. My concern is that people
have already made up their mind and that any statements made by the “devil” cannot be trusted. I would
certainly not be against the EC mandating some kind of clause that ensures that MySQL does not get killed
or marginalized in any way. IMHO, this would be much more palatable to all involved, assuming that Oracle
is not *lying*, than the idea of a non-profit organization to take over the “project” or any forced divesting
of the asset.

Besides, MySQL is apparently the issue blocking the Oracle/Sun merger, while Sun is losing money and shedding jobs at an alarming rate — cuts of 3000 were announced last week. If there’s an option that prevents Sun and the MySQL company from suffering through further delays, it’s certainly worth exploring.

@Monkey: I agree that I could have expressed the distinction of company vs. project more clearly, since I’m certainly aware of it. While this lack of clarity is regrettable, it doesn’t invalidate the article.

You say that “MySQL is now the same product inside of a different company”. Assuming the merger goes ahead, you’re right — there’s just the fact that that “different company” happens to be a large vendor of proprietary databases, and has so far failed to allay concerns that it might be acquiring MySQL in order to get rid of a competitor.

It is precisely this concern that the European Commission is investigating. There are other credible motives for Oracle to want MySQL, for example the ability to offer a competing product to Microsoft SQL Server.

What troubles me is Oracle’s reluctance to say what they’re planning. I can imagine scenarios where Oracle’s control of MySQL would be good for both competition and Free Software. So no, I’m not opposed in principle to Oracle controlling MySQL, if they provide some assurance that they won’t simply keep the project in suspended animation.

You say that “Any *fork* of MySQL could certainly become a large free software database project (see MariaDB, XtraDB etc.)
and would be able to fulfill all of your goals mentioned here.”

Indeed, those forks already exist. But they take time to gain traction and match the development speed of MySQL. Companies that used to provide services from MySQL would have to explain their customers why they now offer services for something with a different name, and why it is still the same thing it used to be. That would mean difficulties for a lot of them, reducing competition in market.

Regarding faith in the GPL: Rather than blindly believe in a license, I like the GPL for its reciprocal properties. It’s not the only useful license out there. But in and of itself, the GPL alone (or any other license) can’t assure a project’s success. As the article explains in great detail, there are other aspects beside the license that are important for a project’s sustainability and success, such as control of the codebase and plain old project management.

It is precisely this aspect that people bringing up the GPL and RMS fail to grasp: the letter is about the effect on the competitive landscape, not on whether the GPL preserves the availability of the MySQL code. However, the MySQL database product is a competitor to Oracle’s database product: Oracle is all about big data and performance, and like it or not, MySQL is now being used in big data and performance situations, regardless of whether people find that distasteful or not.

Yes, there are other competitors, and yes, I’d rather use some of those, too. I’m not fully aware of the relationship between MySQL/Sun/Oracle and those dependent on the proprietary licensing of MySQL, but if there is a reasonable amount of business depending on a benevolent Oracle Corporation, then this is pertinent to any competition-related complaint. Certainly, if MySQL can be considered a major competitor to Oracle, and if Oracle decide to restrict features of the MySQL product in order to up-sell users, they have stifled competition, not just for people wanting a proprietary database system (who this affects directly), but also for people doing business providing GPL-licensed derivatives of the product.

Now, I don’t care about the proprietary people, and I can’t really say that I would advocate an unbundling of MySQL (the code or the organisational division) from the Sun/Oracle deal, and all the different kinds of “consumers” can obviously take their business elsewhere, but if a well-trodden path for “consumers” goes up in smoke, it’s worth further investigation by the relevant authorities. Indeed, the issue is precisely that of whether Oracle should be allowed to acquire the product and exercise its subsequent rights over it, not whether it can do what it wants after acquiring the product and whether this is nice to people or not. Thus, the complaints of the letter and concerns about the future of the MySQL product (and of the choices available to a class of “consumers”) are far from frivolous.

(Of course, there’s also concern about whether Oracle would be good stewards of the MySQL project. Sun had a fairly well-criticised reputation around matters like copyright assignment and other things mentioned in this article. These things also affect whether choices disappear from the marketplace and raise the issue of which party is responsible for that occurring. And yes: that is also pertinent to any competition-related complaint.)

“MySQL, a large Free Software database project”

This is dead wrong. MySQL was a *company* that developed a product also called MySQL, which was their
intellectual property (protected by copyrights). MySQL is now the same product inside of a different
parent company. I don’t understand what makes you think that it seems like a logical solution to turn a
*company*, a *corporation*, into a non-profit organization?

Any *fork* of MySQL could certainly become a large free software database project (see MariaDB, XtraDB etc.)
and would be able to fulfill all of your goals mentioned here. When did the FSF stop believing in the GPL?