MySQL, Oracle, and the EC

[unixronin]

Monty Widenius, the creator of MySQL, makes this plea to help save MySQL from falling under the control of Oracle, an event which is looking increasingly bad for MySQL should it come to pass.

My letter to the EC:

I am opposed to the acquisition of Sun Microsystems by Oracle.  This is partially, but not entirely, because Sun currently owns MySQL, one of the two preeminent open-source database engines, and I firmly believe that Oracle gaining control of MySQL would be a conflict of interest that would threaten the future of MySQL.  MySQL has become a very capable database which threatens the low end of Oracle's market for its eponymous flagship product.  I question Oracle's dedication to maintaining the Solaris operating system, but more importantly, I suspect that one of Oracle's major motivations for acquiring Sun may be to eliminate MySQL as a competitor for the low end of its business.

Oracle's record following its acquisition of InnoDB show the likely future of an acquisition of MySQL by Oracle:

• InnoDB bugs have been fixed by Oracle only when required by contractual obligation

• New features announced before the acquisition have been delayed by as much as three years

• The open-source community has been excluded from continuing InnoDB development

• Patches that would have improved InnoDB performance have been neglected

• Oracle proprietized InnoDB into a closed-source product, InnoDB+, forcing Sun to fork InnoDB just to be able to apply performance patches and bug fixes

MySQL's fate is likely to be no better.  The probable future of MySQL if Oracle is allowed to buy Sun is that it will either be proprietized into a closed-source "Oracle Lite" commercial product like InnoDB+, or killed altogether.  For Oracle to gain control of MySQL would allow Oracle to strengthen its position in the database market into a near monopoly, leaving PostgreSQL as the only remaining enterprise-capable open-source database engine.  Thus I see an acquisition of Sun by Oracle as directly anti-competitive.  My concerns over this possibility are only made worse by Oracle's recent "astroturfing" among its large corporate customers, who do not use MySQL and would be unaffected by the acquisition, urging them to send letters in complete support of the acquisition.

It is my feeling that if Oracle is allowed to acquire Sun Microsystems, it should only be upon condition either — at minimum — that Oracle make strict guarantees to maintain the open-source status of both MySQL and OpenSolaris, keep them in active development, and generally not treat them as "red-headed stepchildren"; or, better, Oracle should be be required to divest itself of MySQL — NOT terminate MySQL — and transfer it to another entity that will maintain it properly and maintain its open-source status, as well as guaranteeing the future of the OpenSolaris foundation.

Comments

[mrakg]

I'm not entirely sympathetic to Widenius in this case. He sold his interests for a large sum of money...and then walked away.

That being said, I'd like to see Oracle and Sun spin MySQL off as its own entity, to succeed or fail on its own merits.

(Disclaimer of personal biases: By profession, I am an Oracle DBA. For an Open Source product, I happen to strongly prefer PostgreSQL over MySQL.)

[ithildae]

Monty is hardly an impartial bystander in this. His goal is to reengage the licensing engine that he sold to Sun. There is some speculation that he wants to un-GPL the code so that he can generate greater income from the proprietary extensions his company can create. (The speculation is covered on Groklaw, quoting from Florian Muller's letters to the EC.)

I think the Oracle purchase is a good fit. MySQL does not compete with OracleDB. The two products fill entirely different needs in the IT infrastructure. MySQL competes more directly with SQLServer, a Micro$oft product. Larry would love to eat some of Bill's billions. I don't see Oracle trying to kill MySQL.

The EC blocking the purchase makes little sense to me. True, there are some Europeans that desperately want to regain control of MySQL, and lock in that revenue stream, but they sold those rights a few years back, for lots of money. Micro$oft is a huge opponent of the purchase, but they have a vulnerable product that a real database company could seriously damage. SAP is also an opponent to the deal, no idea why except that they are a Micro$oft partner.

I am not enthused with Oracle running an important element of the LAMP stack, but I am really not happy with what I have heard from Widenius and Muller about what MontyAB wants to do with it. Just because it is not an ideal choice does not mean it is not the best choice.

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

why is sun coming under threat of acquisition??? tooo far in the red?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Too much market share lost to commodity x86 and amd64 systems, basically.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

Not a target; they've been looking for a buyout. Sun been losing money for years. Apparently they haven't been able to make up for the loss of their hardware business with sales of Java enterprise software.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

maybe if Sun's enterprise software (Java or otherwise) didn't suck ...

Their x86 hardware is actually rather nice, though. Too bad it isn't saving the ship.

As for the larger issue:

He sold/something-along-those-lines MySQL, and now he's asking to, essentially, retain control of it*, even though he no longer owns it? Seems like a situation of "doh! shouldn't have sold it" ... you pick your consequences, and that's the situation he's in.

(*by attempting to get the EU to dictate terms of MySQL's life to Oracle ... terms that are coming from, the guy who gave up control of MySQL)

Don't get me wrong, I don't want to see Oracle squash MySQL, nor see Oracle become even more of a dominant database provider, nor do I want to see the field of enterprise class open source databases narrowed down to one. But ... it's hard for me to see this as anything other than "you made your bed, now lay in it".

Someone else suggested that forking MySQL might be difficult, but it also sounds like that MIGHT be the only realistic option.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't read this as Widenius trying to regain/retain control of MySQL; my impression is that he just doesn't want Oracle to kill it or turn it into a proprietary closed-source product, and I tend to think, given their performance with InnoDB, that his lack of trust in Oracle is justified.

I think you're right that in the long run, a MySQL fork is the real answer.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

Trying to get the EU to force Oracle not to kill/ruin MySQL is him trying to assert a form of control over it. Control he sold to Oracle (via Sun).

If he didn't want someone, some day, to eventually close, kill, or monetize MySQL, he shouldn't have sold it. By selling it, he gave up his say on the matter. So it's a little disingenuous for him to turn around and try to get the EU to do it for him.

[randwolf.livejournal.com]

I think critcizing Widenius in this area is unproductive. Let's not side with the creepy monopolists, hey?

Forking MySQL is only going to work if further development can be funded, and that will be difficult. Maybe the Apache Foundation could be persuaded to take it on. Larry Ellison, CEO of Oracle, is likely to go on the war path if that occurs, however--by accounts I have heard, he is a bad enemy.

[johnkzin.livejournal.com]

a) Criticizing him isn't even remotely the same thing as taking sides with "creepy monopolists".

b) being a "creepy monopolist" doesn't make someone inherently wrong.

Though, (b) is largely tangential to what I said. He gave up control of MySQL. This is the consequence of his decision.

[unix-jedi.livejournal.com]

I think that this is the "easiest" way for Sun to fix their support crisis and some other organizational stupidities.

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

Fork MySql or go with Postgresql. If someone put the proprietary licensed version of Mysql in their product it sucks to be them. They can tease the code out and re implement their product in GPL'd MySql or Postgresql or choke on Oracle's.

[hrrunka]

I've a vague recollection that mySQL's licence makes a fork complicated. Time to go reading, I think...

[mrmeval.livejournal.com]

It's now GPL'd and I do not think there are gotcha's. What would make for minor difficulties is the name which is trademarked. I'd go with iSQL, MaiSQL, NMSQL, MaiTSQL, YourSQL, OurSQL or something cute. ;)