
Why Save MySQL Now? - jp_sc
http://holdenweb.blogspot.com/2010/01/wht-save-mysql-now.html
======
euroclydon
A commenter says that no fork will be able to offer a dual license, and that a
fork is only for the GPL portion of the license. Even so, what's the big deal
there? Any sizable company can offer to sell a support contract for an open
source license of the DB. What am I missing here?

~~~
tentonova
I'm firmly disagree with Monty's duplicity, but I'll try to shed some light on
it.

The "big deal" is that only two things provide a revenue stream around MySQL
sufficient to support the heavy R&D costs associated with building a database
product:

\- The name ("MySQL")

\- The copyright.

If you own the name, you can sell branded binaries and services. If you own
the copyright, you can sell non-GPL licenses to commercial interests. Without
these, creating a viable revenue stream is incredibly difficult.

I think this ties into this discussion, as well:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1028638> \-- I Love the GPL (Except When
it Applies to Me)

~~~
gaius
_Without these, creating a viable revenue stream is incredibly difficult._

Yes, and Monty knew that when he chose to structure MySQL the product that
way. Everything is proceeding exactly as he foresaw and intended.

~~~
tentonova
I agree -- and I think Monty has no business taking umbrage with the bed he's
made -- but it's worth exploring why this is the case.

~~~
euroclydon
Would it be fair to speculate that he never foresaw the largest proprietary DB
vendor eventually buying MySql?

~~~
IgorPartola
The only thing we can speculate about is what we would have done in his shoes,
unless he provides a convincing insight. If it was me, and I cared about a
project of mine for the sake of the project and thought it was a vital project
(as opposed to one of my tinker toys), I would have open sources the whole
thing, no dual license. That way nobody can "steal" it from the community, by
buying some company. I would also have tried to give it to someone like the
Apache Foundation, so that when I die, my project does not.

On the other hand, if I thought my project was going to be a cash cow, I would
have done exactly what Monty did, except the whining after the fact. I think
if I buy a car, then sell it to someone and that person sells it later to my
arch nemesis for a discount and he plans on wrecking the heck out of it, my
screaming about how this is not right is not going to attract many supporters,
is it?

~~~
tptacek
When you say "I would have open sourced the whole thing", what you really mean
is "I would have BSD-licensed the whole thing". There is no difference between
dual-licensed GPL code and straight-up GPL code. In both cases, your rights as
an end-user are identical. In neither case can you pick up the codebase after
it's sold to Sun and start a new commercial endeavor on it that _isn't_ GPL'd.

------
mellis
An open-source project is more than the code. It also includes the community
and the resources for continuing development. Although the code is under the
GPL, Sun (and now possibly Oracle) has control of the brand and many of the
potential revenue streams. A fork would lack the benefit of a clear,
centralized community and many resources to fund development. Both of these
things threaten the future of MySQL as an open-source project.

~~~
senko
Forking + rebranding is perfectly viable option. A similar thing happened to
the popular Mambo CMS, which had a big community and user base. Over time,
everyone switched to Joomla, the rebranded free version - I don't see Mambo
mentioned anywhere anymore.

If the same zeal and effort being spent to oppose Oracle were being spent to
create a community around a fork, helped by the controversy it'd be a widely
known thing already. Couple that with OS vendors choosing the fork over the
"mainline", and in a few years the fork would be "the" MySQL, albeit with a
different name.

------
gaius
I can guarantee that for the $1Bn Sun's shareholder's paid him for it - 14% of
the total price Oracle is paying for _all of Sun_ \- Monty could buy MySQL
back from Oracle and do with it as he pleased. So why doesn't he?

~~~
nailer
Really? Java (which is most of the value of Sun) and MySQL are the only Sun
products in mainstream use. Solaris is in the same state as HPUX was 10 years
ago, VirtualBox and Sun's Xen Product don't have significant market share. Why
would Oracle want to sell MySQL back?

~~~
mseebach
Because they bought Sun for the hardware-business and Java. They sort-a
already have a database, and if selling MySQL to Monty can save them some
trouble with a bored EU regulator that gets its kicks from telling US business
how to operate, I'm sure they'll be happy to. It'll have to be at market
value, though, and it seems a bit like Monty wants a solution where he stays
very rich.

~~~
nailer
So they didn't buy Sun to get the largest OSS database in the world?

Sun's storage products are top notch but I doubt Oracle specifically wanted to
move into the field. Selling replacement SPARCs to the banks that still have
Solaris won't last long, Oracle know that.

~~~
mseebach
Sun has a very good range of hardware that goes far beyond SPARC, and Oracle
is marketing it aggressively[1]

They specifically cited Java and hardware in the acquisition announcement, and
I have a really hard time seeing the strategic value of the MySQL asset.
Oracle has much more to gain from a "come to us when you're ready to sit at
the grown-ups table" position.

1: [http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/29/oracle-scolded-by-
ind...](http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2009/09/29/oracle-scolded-by-industry-
group-for-sun-ad/)

~~~
nailer
FYI your citation is a link to an ad for SPARC.

~~~
gaius
Well, yes. The aim was to show that Oracle is actively marketing SPARC. What
better way to do that than by citing an ad?

~~~
nailer
Ah, I thought you were using to site that 'Sun has a very good range of
hardware that goes far beyond SPARC'. Yes, Oracle are marketing SPARC, because
they're going to own it. It doesn't mean that it has a future and people will
start running new projects on SPARC again.

------
jacquesm
Moral of the story: you can't sell your cake and have it too.

------
figital
This is the perfect example of why I will continue to hedge my bets on
permissively-licensed open source (X/MIT/BSD).

Postgres and SQL are great products and should fill any gaps should you
consider switching from MySQL (or Oracle).

------
elblanco
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=994584>

