MySQL Classic Edition is a non-GPL binary licensed only for use as an embedded database in other software. It is not the MySQL powering websites around the world, and not the one you get off your Linux distribution's package manager.
As has been pointed out: this matters to you if you subscribe to MySQL support. The vast majority of MySQL users who just run the DB on their servers have nothing to worry about.
It's not about support. This only matters to you if you use MySQL as an embedded database in software you distribute, as that's the only use MySQL Classic Edition is licensed for.
You buy support contracts completely separately, on their support page, not their product (binary licensing) page.
The FUD today on HN regarding MySQL is just confusing people.
Still, seems like a harbinger of things to come. Soon-ish, I think we should transition away from MySQL being our go-to default back-end for Rails apps.
I know a couple of startups that have specifically chosen http://www.postgresql.org/ because of oracles acquisition of MySql. I wouldn't be surprised if this trend continues.
They claim that "InnoDB is stated to be a faster storage engine", which is not necessarily true. The most important features of InnoDB are ACID transactions, foreign keys and overall reliability.
The article also says "There is another option called NoSQL which is primarily meant for applications that have to scale on the cloud", which doesn't really mean anything. Not to mention that it suggests that NoSQL is a single technology or product.
Overall the article is an example of a very poor journalism.
See discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1868106