Oracle tried to acquire open-source database maker MySQL, an indication of the profound changes the software giant is willing to make as it adapts to the increasingly significant collaborative programming philosophy. MySQL Chief Executive Marten Mickos confirmed the acquisition attempt in an interview at the Open Source Business Conference here but wouldn't provide details such as when the approach was made or how much money Oracle offered.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-07
Oracle has already bought the company behind InnoDB (the storage engine I personally use in mySQL and the one that provides mySQL with things like foreign key constraints) and the company behind BerkeleyDB.
Oracle is essentially buying their competition. While they can't stop mySQL and other GPL software from being distributed, they can stop the funding train for new development. The fact is that mySQL has gotten to the point that it is very useful for tons of projects. As companies look to replace legacy products they are faced with the option of either upgrading a product relying on Oracle and paying to upgrade Oracle with it or replacing it with something based on mySQL. I'm not saying that mySQL is always the right choice, but as it becomes more mature, it cuts further into Oracle's profits.
By buying mySQL, they could cut off support for it (something businesses need because they need someone to yell at if something goes wrong), they could halt sponsored development and patching (another killer issue for businesses) and suggest that customers move to Oracle (or buy a more expensive mySQL license from Oracle).
If your product is becoming less and less relavant, it becomes a wise idea to buy your competition.
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-02-11
Member since:2005-07-06
Thing is Oracle isn't out shopping for a competent DDMS -they already got that. They're out shopping for MySQL's customers one way or the other. If Oracles recent acquisitions would prove to halt MySQLs development, there's always PostgreSQL to fall back as an Open SOurce DBMS.
Member since:2006-02-17
Member since:
2005-11-15
Oracle is most likely not trying to buy to competition, but is rather trying to diversify it's business while the options are cheap. It bought InnoDB not to put MySQL out of business but because this gave it contact information for all the customers who wanted the enterprise roll-back capability not normally found in MySQL.
SleepyCat, recently bought by Oracle, doesn't compete with Oracle. The SleepyCat database product doesn't even process SQL commands. it is designed for embedded database in things like routers and phone switches.
Oracle is acting in anticipation of the day when it cannot make huge profit margins on its Oracle database products, currently it's cash cow. That's why it bought PeopleSoft, to diversify. That's the reason for the buying spree. To diversify.
Member since:
2005-11-15
And FYI, no company can buy PostGres. PostGres is not a company, it is a project. Any company can adopt, use, sell the source code. But since Postgres is not a company, it can't be bought.
In the past PostGres has been adopted as a product by Great Bridge (now out of business), By Red Hat (dropped after pressure from Oracle), and recently adopted by Sun for Solaris.
Member since:2005-07-06
They can't buy Postgresql, but they certainly could hire the most talanted postgresql developers. By doing that they could slow down its development process.
Of course, some of them may be hard to buy, as they allready have good jobs e.g. at Sun, that resntly announced that they would support Postgresql and bundle it with Solaris 10.
Member since:
2005-11-05
Some code straight from the Oracle playbook:
eat() {
buy $1
deprecate $1
sell oracle
}
while [ $competitor = true ]; do
eat $competitor
done
Innobase, PeopleSoft, Siebel, sleepycat, possibly Jboss, attempted mysql... Then next thing they know, they are going to bite off more than they can chew and have to spit some of it out. Predatory business practices like this should seriously be illegal.
Member since:
2006-01-11
Member since:
2005-07-06
I'm just glad MySQL and InnoDB are free -- as in GPL. No matter what happens to the respective companies, the code's still free. So, if the worst happens, at least the community can still pick them up and continue development.
The root of the problem MySQL seems to be facing, I think, is related to the dual-licensing. AFAIK, InnoDB is licensed the same as MySQL: GPL, but they'll sell the code to you under a different license if you like. To do this, it seems to me that they (both MySQL and Innobase, respectively) must retain full copyright over the code. This obviously makes both projects less popular as the sort of project a hacker might want to work on -- since they'd probably have to assign copyright to MySQL/Innobase for any code they contribute.
So now, instead of Innobase owning the copyright for InnoDB, it looks like Oracle does. That means Oracle can decide to raise what they charge for the non-GPL-licensed version. Which means the price increase gets passed down to the MySQL customers. I think this might be the risk you take when you do a dual-licensing scheme.
Even if MySQL forked the InnoDB code, they still wouldn't have fully copyright, and thus still couldn't sell an other-licensed version.
I'm very new to MySQL, so take my analysis with a grain of salt, but what are their options now? I think MaxDB may be copyrighted by SAP AG (dunno), so maybe there's an option for MySQL there...
Member since:
2005-07-06
Member since:
2006-01-21
Larry Ellison was interviewed in one of the Linux magazines a couple of years ago. When the interviewer mentioned MySQL, Ellison was derisive, saying it was good for nothing more than "storing a few recipes".
It seems he's changed his mind a little since then. 
-Flieslikeabeagle
Member since:
2006-02-17
