Help keep the Internet free

A big part of the Internet is built on LAMP (Linux, Apache, MySQL and PHP/Perl/Python). Now Oracle is trying to buy Sun, which owns MySQL.

It's not in the Internet users interest that one key piece of the net would be owned by an entity that has more to gain by severely limiting and in the long run even killing it as an open source product than by keeping it alive. If Oracle were allowed to acquire MySQL, we would be looking at less competition among databases, which will mean higher license and support prices. In the end it's always the consumers and the small businesses that have to pay the bills, in this case to

Thanks for all the help in the first Save mysql effort. The blog got hit by more than 60,000 users and we where able to generate an approximate number of 10,000 emails to the EC. New answers are still coming in. Of the answers 0.7 % says "I trust Oracle". The rest 99.3 % says that they don't trust that Oracle would be good owner of MySQL.

We have got an indication that this is making a difference within EC, but we don't want to take any chances. We need to counter BOTH the about 400 Oracle customers that Oracle has persuaded to contact the EC AND the political and public pressure Oracle is putting on EC.

This is why we are now launching a world wide campaign in several languages to get a very large number of names that we will give to those taking the decision. This will include the European Commission (EC) and the representatives of the 27 EU Member States who will meet in Brussels in early January to discuss the case. It will also include regulators in other jurisdictions (where it would, unlike in Europe, not be acceptable to announce in public who they are).

We are searching for volunteers to help us with this effort. If you are interested to help, join the #helpmysql IRC channel on Freenode. Help us keep the infrastructure of the Internet free!

In the rest of the blog I will try to answer all the questions and concerns that were raised in the first Help-MySQL campaign. This is not required reading, but may be of some interest for those the want to know a little more about my thinking of the current situation.

I will do this in the form of a self-interview, something a lot of famous bloggers have done in the past.

Q: Why don't you trust that Oracle would be a good owner of MySQL?

Oracle is the company that has the biggest market share in revenues for databases in all customer markets/segments. MySQL is the database with the highest number of installed units in all markets (except in the high enterprise market where it has only a medium size unit share). If Oracle were allowed to buy MySQL then Oracle would almost be in a monopoly position in many market segments.

MySQL is causing Oracle sales losses around 1 billion usd/year (in lost sales to MySQL and because of having to do heavy discounting when competing with MySQL). Why would Oracle have an interest to invest in an open source MySQL long term?

Oracle has studied MySQL a long time and even offered to buy it twice before, but I have not yet seen the logic or explanation from Oracle that would explain how they can continue to develop and support MySQL without cannibalizing the most profitable part of their business.

There is no other logical reason why Oracle would buy MySQL than to control it, reduce the competition with the present Oracle offering and slowly change it to a more closed source product and start charging for it and at the same time eliminate the competition between MySQL and Oracle.

If we examine what has happened lately, we don't get any reassurance that Oracle would be a good owner:
  • Instead of working with the EC to quickly resolve things, Oracle has delayed the process in every imaginable way and instead resorted to public pressure to try to convince the EC to quickly approve the deal.
  • Oracle did not provide any remedies to the EC and the public promises they have published are just empty promises.
  • As part of the new layoffs in Sun, a lot of open source people, including people from the MySQL group have been fired. It seems that Oracle has been part of choosing the people that will be laid off.
  • Oracle as a company is not known for releasing its own software as open source. The open source software it has acquired, like InnoDB, has after being acquired, been developed secretly and slowly which is against how things are done in the open source environment. Larry Ellison's own statement about open source summarizes it nicely "We don't have to fight open source, we have to exploit open source".
  • The main work Oracle has contributed to open source is extending the Linux kernel, but they have done that mainly to ensure that their own products works better on Linux.

Q: Can Oracle change the license of MySQL ?

Oracle can't change the license for old versions of MySQL. They can however change the license for all new code and put a majority of all new development on the new closed source version. Over time the MySQL GPL code from Oracle will be as usable as Betamax video cassettes. It is just not enough to give promises for the next 5 years as MySQL will be needed in the market for years to come.

Q: MySQL is free (GPL) software, how could anyone be able to kill it?

With killed, I mean a project that is not actively developed and for which you don't get bug fixes or support. By not spending money on development of the open source version of MySQL and/or position it in the market as 'not reliable' or 'for testing only' Oracle could make the open source very unattractive for most users. The open source version of MySQL would not be an attractive alternative for long and users will start searching for other alternatives. The easiest alternative, because of no migration costs, will be paying for a closed source Enterprise version of MySQL from Oracle.

GPL only guarantees that the (old) code will always be free. It doesn't guarantee the economics around the project or that anyone can or will develop it further.

Q: But why can't one just a fork (make a copy of it and start developing it)?

MySQL is an infrastructure project, a building block which others either enhance (like storage engines) or which they embedded in other products (think of a GPL library).

You can fork a GPL infrastructure project, but not the economic ecosystem around it. You can read more about it in my earlier blog posting.

The short summary is:
  • The fork can't be used with other products that are using MySQL as a building block for their closed source applications.
  • The fork has to work in an environment where no one has to pay for it. (How can there be enough money to earn for serious development ?)
  • In addition to the above, it's also very hard to do a full fork of a project like MySQL. You need, among other things:
  • Leaders that have passion for the project (Almost all big successful open source projects have passionate leaders that help coordinate and provide a vision).
  • People who know the code and can maintain and extend it.
  • Money: For hardware, company infrastructure, marketing to get known (especially if you fork a known trademark, like MySQL) etc.
To continue develop a fork of MySQL so that it continues to be a competing force in the database industry, you need 5-10 musd/year to put on development. There is very little chance that a fork can get enough money to do the needed development when there are very few companies that can use the fork to generate direct revenue. There are also very few investors that are prepared to put money into a product with no sure income stream and a model that is only based on services.

I don't know if there ever has been a successful fork of a big infrastructure program like MySQL. It is wishful thinking to claim that released under the GPL license is enough remedy for Oracle and "if Oracle is doing something bad" a fork will 'appear' and take care of things.
  • I don't think that competition cases should be judged based on wishful thinking.
Oracle has made a big point that they are not a threat to MySQL because anyone can just fork it. If they really believe this is true, then they would have divested MySQL a long time ago to get a quick clearance of the Oracle/Sun deal and would then have forked MySQL. They would not have let Sun lose 1 billion usd (based on Larry Ellison's estimate) while waiting for clearance because of MySQL.

If MySQL were be so easy to fork, Sun would also not have paid 1 billion for MySQL.

Q: You are doing your own fork of MySQL called MariaDB. How can you do that if it's so hard to fork MySQL?

When we started with MariaDB, MySQL was owned by Sun, which has a lot of reasons to keep MySQL alive and well. We had seen no changes in the policies of SUN regarding licenses or costs. In this scenario it's possible to do a successful fork if you can provide added value to what Sun is doing (like working more closely with the community).

However with an owner that has nothing to gain by developing MySQL, under an open source license, things are totally different.

The reason we are continuing with MariaDB is that all persons in Monty Program Ab are committed to work on the product, for which many of us have worked for close to 10 years.

We don't expect to make a lot of money while doing this, but we hope to be able to ensure that MySQL can continue to live as an open source product for some extended time.

In the discussions now people are very easily saying that "there is no problem, the community will take care of it if Oracle tried to kill MySQL".

I can tell you it's not easy; I have the best possible team working on MariaDB, still it has taken us 9 months to do some small required changes and create an infrastructure to be able to do our first release (we released a beta last month and are now working on releasing a release candidate (RC)).

We are spending 100,000 Euros/months just to keep MySQL alive (as MariaDB) and there are no sure signs we will ever be able to get that money back. Fortunately we have enough funding so we can continue some years with doing this. This is however not sustainable forever.

Q: Why have a lot of companies put money into developing Linux? Doesn't Linux have the same problems with GPL as MySQL?

While Linux is indeed distributed under the GPL, as is MySQL, Linux has an exception that allows anyone to run any kind of applications (including closed source applications) on top of Linux without being affected by the Linux copyright or GPL:

"NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work"

Compare this to Sun's statement about commercial licenses:
"For OEMs, ISVs, VARs and Other Distributors of Commercial Applications:
OEMs, ISVs, VARs and other distributors that combine and distribute commercially licensed software with MySQL software and do not wish to distribute the source code for the commercially licensed software under version 2 of the GNU General Public License (the "GPL") must enter into a commercial license agreement with Sun"

The main reasons companies are taking part developing Linux is that they want their hardware and software to work with Linux. They don't make money directly on Linux, they make money on the things around Linux, without being affected by the GPL.

As closed source vendors can't use a fork of MySQL, because with the fork they are affected by the GPL, they will not spend time or money to develop the MySQL fork.

Q: What does your company, Monty Program Ab do?

Monty Program Ab Ab is a development company. We are working on a branch of MySQL, called MariaDB. MariaDB is an enhanced (faster, more features and less bugs) drop-in replacement of MySQL that is only available under GPL.

Monty Program Ab is planned to be a small company with a close connection to its employees and we have no plans to grow to more than 50 people (as after 50, you often lose the family-friendly feeling in the company).

We do mainly development of new features and extensions to MariaDB and MySQL. We also provide level 3 support to companies delivering support on MariaDB.

We don't do and don't plan to do e.g. end user support or training. We don't plan (and we don't want) be a new MySQL AB.

Monty Program Ab is created around the 'Hacking Business Model' that in practice makes the company 'employee owned'. There is no money I can personally make from Monty Program Ab.

Q: Why are you working with the EC to try to block the deal?

I have two main objects in my business life:
  • Save the product, that I worked on for 27 year, from getting killed as an open source project.
  • Ensure that the core developers of MySQL, who I have worked with for many years, get a good 'home' where they can continue to develop MySQL.
I am hoping for the EC and other regulators to ensure the first of the above. Monty Program Ab was created to ensure the second.

Q: In your view, what are the possible solutions for the Oracle / Sun / MySQL deal?

The European Commission (EC) has recognized that MySQL and Oracle are competing products and issued a statement of objections (SO) against the merger between Oracle and Sun on 11'th of November 2009.

As long as the products are recognized to be competing, any solution that the EC would accept has to ensure that there is as much competition in the database field before the merger as after the merger.

For this, I only see two working solutions:
  1. Oracle should divest MySQL.
  2. Oracle should change the license of MySQL to a more permissive Open Source license that would ensure that if Oracle would try to kill MySQL, the community would be able to take over and rescue MySQL and develop it as a product that can be freely used by everyone.
Divesting is the normal case to handle competition cases.

Doing a license change is a controversial thing that the EC can't force Oracle to do. This is however something that Oracle can suggest to the EC as a remedy to not have to divest MySQL.

Personally I would prefer divestiture as this is a clean solution to the problem. However, I could personally live with the solution 2) as this would achieve my main personal objective: That MySQL can't be killed.

Q: Isn't it unreasonable to require Oracle to change the license of MySQL?

Yes, of course neither the EU nor any other jurisdiction could dictate anything like that. Divestiture is the normal solution when you need to clear competition concerns. But since Oracle is trying to get away with some compromise, and if a compromise is what we get, it should be one where MySQL has a chance to survive. Not a compromise that just means a different kind of death for MySQL.

Q: How do the proposed remedies benefit your company, Monty Program Ab?

We do not know but hope that many companies would be unhappy with the new competitive situation if Oracle is the owner and would seek out MariaDB instead. But a big portion of the revenue would not come to us (as we cannot sell licenses, we do not produce first line support...)

If MySQL were divested to a strong player in the market that would care about MySQL and would have the trust in the market, Monty Program Ab would get a hard competitor and would have a hard time to get business.

If MySQL were licensed under a permissive license, like BSD, then the users would benefit as they now can securely continue to use MySQL in all context. Monty Program Ab would also switch to only produce code under BSD for the MariaDB server, to ensure that also MariaDB can be used in all context.

Monty Program Ab would benefit very little from of this; We cannot take money from selling BSD; We can only hope that there is a market demand for our skilled engineers.

The companies that would benefit the most from BSD are the companies that enhance MySQL (storage engine vendors and companies providing extensions to MySQL) and companies that embed MySQL in their products, like Adobe or Cisco.

The reason we are hoping for regulators to get the deal blocked on the current basis is thus not to earn more money, but because it's more important for us that MySQL will continue to be free, available for all, and developed in a way that meets the needs of all major market segments.

Q: As you are suggesting a license change, is GPL then a bad Open Source license?

I think that GPL is a great open source license, in many cases the best license. The GPL license ensures freedom of the code and at the same time gives the copyright holder a very strong control on the code and it's ecosystem, especially it's closed source customers.

Thanks to this property of GPL, it's safe for many closed source vendors of embeddable software, to release their software as GPL. They get the benefit of the open source community, they help promote free software and can still make a good living of it. Those that need the software under another license than GPL are paying the bills.

I am constantly encouraging companies to release their software as GPL, including companies like MoSync, that I have myself invested

It's however the strong control that GPL gives the copyright holder for embeddable software that is a problem in this particular case of MySQL. It gives Oracle the possibility to slowly kill MySQL as not everyone can use it. Oracle can this way starve the ecosystem around MySQL so that nobody can live there decently.

The code is still free, but in practice not everyone would or could use it.

This is why GPL is not very often used for libraries (and other infrastructure software). For libraries one normally uses LGPL, that allows anyone to freely use the software in their application.

What MySQL AB did, that was unique at the time, was to use the 'inconvenience of GPL' in a library as a way to do dual licensing. By providing commercial licenses for MySQL, everyone could use MySQL (for commercial vendors for a small price).

In short, GPL is a fantastic license, but without dual licensing, not very good for a library that is to be used by everyone.

Q: What other things can go wrong if regulators approves the deal?

If the deal is approved based on the fact that 'MySQL can be forked', that will be a big blow to open source Software.

It means that open source software is not protected for anticompetitive measures and it will be ok for big companies to freely buy up their open source competitors and kill them.

Note that not even PostgreSQL is safe from this threat! For example, Oracle could buy some companies developing PostgreSQL and target the core developers. Without the core developers working actively on PostgreSQL, the PostgreSQL project will be weakened tremendously and it could even die as ar result.

Q: There have been some suggestions on the net that in the past you did approve of Oracle buying MySQL. Have you now changed your mind?

"Anyone who knows me, knows that I don't change my mind" :)

Jokes aside, when the Oracle proposition to buy MySQL first time come up, I said that I could stand behind the deal only if the MySQL license was changed to BSD as part of the deal. Even back then, I wanted to ensure that MySQL would continue to be free, available and developed to meet the needs of all major market segments, in spite of what Oracle would try to do to it.

Q: Are MySQL and Oracle really competing products ?


To be fair, they don't compete for all applications and it's in many cases prohibitively expensive, risky and time-consuming to migrate an old Oracle application to work on MySQL.

However for new applications MySQL and Oracle are competing in almost every customer segment. Oracle has for years tried to come into the Web market, but has not succeeded, mainly because MySQL has already been there.

When a MySQL sales person goes and visit customers, it's in most cases Oracle, and in many cases only Oracle, that MySQL is competing with.

Q: How about MySQL on Windows? Does MySQL compete with MS SQL Server?

Windows was not the key target platform for MySQL. Almost all developers at MySQL AB worked on Linux/Unix and did their development there. This was not because we didn't want MySQL to run well on Windows, but because we had not found developers that wanted to work on MySQL on Windows and also because most of our big customers were running Linux/Unix.

It's also clear that Sun would never have been interested in MySQL if MySQL primarily compete on Windows (as Oracle claim it does).

Q: Why can't everyone just switch to PostgreSQL?

PostgreSQL is a great database; I am friends with many of the PostgreSQL core developers.

The problems with PostgreSQL are:
  • It's not compatible with MySQL (different feature sets and different support by various applications) and it's far from trivial (in many cases practically impossible) to convert MySQL applications to PostgreSQL and vice versa.
  • It doesn't have a single strong company backing that MySQL has to deliver high class support globally.
  • The PostgreSQL market is also, as far as I know, dominated by Enterprise DB that provides a closed source version of PostgreSQL, which is not good enough for companies standardizing on open source.
So for the Oracle/Sun/MySQL case, PostgreSQL is not an answer that would help approve the deal, the market share is too small.

Q: Don't you care about what happens to Sun?

Yes, I grew up developing on Sun hardware and I feel deeply for Sun. However MySQL is my project that I have worked on for 27 years and must be my first priority.

We also have to recognize that it's Oracle that is holding Sun hostage just to get MySQL. Oracle could have got the deal closed very quickly if they had divested MySQL and just forked it.

Q: "What differentiates MySQL from other open source products Oracle would be acquiring with Sun, like Java or Open Office?"

Oracle doesn't have competing products for Java and Open Office, so there is no reason to assume that Oracle would not take good care of them and generate money from them.

Open Office is also an end user product under a permissive license, LGPL, which means it can easily be forked if Oracle would not take good care of it.

With MySQL this is unfortunately not the case.

Q: Didn't you sell MySQL to Sun? Do you want to have the cake and eat it too?

First a little background:

I started to work on a code that would later become MySQL in 1982. MySQL was released in 1995 under a dual licensing scheme that allowed David Axmark and me to very quickly work full time on developing MySQL.

I lost the rights to the MySQL copyright in 2001 when MySQL AB was created and we allowed investors to come in. We needed to bring in investors to be able to create a full-scale working company to satisfy big customers and to be able to hire more developers and take MySQL to the next stage. To ensure that MySQL would continue to be free, David and I stated in the shareholder agreement that MySQL AB would have to keep MySQL under an open source license. The problem with a shareholder agreement is that it is terminated when the company is sold. This is just how things works.

David and I however thought that this would not be a problem, as we would help ensure that MySQL would be bought by a good owner.

I continued to lead the MySQL project and have been one of the leaders and top contributors for the project since then.

When the sales process to Sun started, I was at the time not anymore in the MySQL Board (just a MySQL shareholder). I was just informed about the deal, after it was agreed to. I did get money for my shares, that is true, but it did not change in any way my dedication or involvement in the MySQL project.

Q: Was SUN a good owner?

Even though I had no say in the deal, I was happy because I thought that Sun, who has been one of the big advocates of open source, would be a good home for MySQL. MySQL was also the missing piece in Sun's software stack and as Sun didn't own any database competing with MySQL, it would be in Sun's interest to continue developing MySQL as an open source database.

This was proven right a couple of months later when the old MySQL management, who was still in charge of MySQL development, announced that they would now, (when they were not anymore bound by the shareholder agreement), add closed source addons to MySQL. Sun's upper management stepped in and forced MySQL's management to retract the statement.

After the Sun deal, I continued to work on MySQL and the Maria storage engine in Sun (in the CTO lab) and, together with Sun upper management, to help Sun be a driving force in open source. I also tried to get Sun to improve the MySQL development organization and change the MySQL development model to be more community friendly.

Q: You left SUN. Did you put pressure on SUN to be able to set up your own company?

The reason I left Sun was that after almost one year of trying, the MySQL development organization was still lacking vision, strategy and engineering excellence and it did not engage with the community.

Some of the developers did in addition not fit in a big publicly listed company and started to talk about leaving SUN.

To ensure we would not start to lose critical MySQL resources from the MySQL ecosystem and to ensure that MySQL would live on, I departed from Sun on good terms, with an understanding of what I needed to do and without any competition clauses.

I created Monty Program Ab and continued to work on a branch of MySQL, now under the name of MariaDB, together with the community and the core MySQL developers that left Sun. We are now 19 persons in Monty Program Ab and all totally dedicated to keep MySQL alive.

Q: How did things change when Oracle came into the picture?

Now when Oracle is trying to buy Sun, I am continuing to what I have always done and never stopped doing; Do what I can to ensure that MySQL is kept alive as an open source product, free and available for all. With Oracle as a buyer this is not a guaranteed outcome, which is why I am working to get the EC to ensure that Oracle can't kill MySQL even if they tried.

As seen from my this and previous answers, the main benefit I can personally get by working with regulators to get the deal blocked, is that MySQL is not killed. This is also the only logical answer, as I already have enough money and could just sit down and relax instead of spending 18 hours a day to try to keep my project alive.

The cake at stake is a free infrastructure for the Internet, which is a cake that millions of MySQL users and billions of Internet users are enjoying today.

Q: Sun paid a billion dollar for MySQL. What did Sun buy?

Sun bought:
  • The MySQL trademark
  • The copyright to the MySQL server and other components (and thus control of the MySQL economical ecosystem).
  • Access to the MySQL community of 15 millions users and probably more than 50 millions installations.
  • MySQL AB's customers contracts.
  • The core developers work contracts
  • All other assets in MySQL AB
What they didn't buy was the control of MySQL as an open source project. You can't buy an open source project with money, the currency in open source is trust. Anyone can and is allowed to fork MySQL and continue develop it outside of Sun and the community will follow the branch/fork they trust more. This doesn't however guarantee that the fork will succeed, especially not economically. In the worst case no one will win, like what happened to the BSD operating system.

Q: Who would like to buy MySQL?

It has been speculated that I would be interested in buying MySQL. This is completely untrue. First I don't have that kind of money (all of the original founders of MySQL got collectively less than 12 % of the Sun deal). Second I am not interested in MySQL AB.

I much more prefer to work in a small family-oriented company, where things are handled in a fair, transparent and open source way.

However, there are a lot of potential buyers on the market: (Note that this is just speculation, I have no information about the intentions of any of the companies mentioned below)
  • IBM (DB2 and MySQL are working in mostly different markets and our sales persons very seldom compete with DB2).
  • Any of the major Linux distribution vendors.
  • Fujitsu (as Fujitsu has close connections with Sun, it has it's own storage engines and is also doing development of databases).
  • Some investment group who would like to take MySQL public (like it was originally planned).

Q: Any final words?

Just that all users of MySQL still have time to influence their own future by going to helpmysql.org and sign the petition to help keep MySQL free and available for all.

We are searching for volunteers to help us with this effort. If you are interested to help, join the #helpmysql IRC channel on Freenode.

Help us keep the infrastructure of the Internet free!


Palmax said...

It's a huge problem, we need to make an effort for helping MySQL.

Unknown said...

"Oracle were allowed to acquire MySQL, we would be looking at less competition among databases, which will mean higher license and support prices"

My MySQL license (GPL) only cost me $0 and grants me lifetime use. As for support prices, it's not like Percona, Pythian or other consultants will raise their prices because of Oracle. And if Oracle's basic support (not performance-oriented) is too expensive, some smart startup will certainly fill the niche.

I'm sure there are valid concerns to be had about Oracle acquiring MySQL, but MySQL's price is just not one of them. Especially not after spending years swearing that its opensourceness would protect it from evil practices. (e.g. when InnoDB got acquired by Oracle, when the "Enterprise edition" was created, when MySQL sold to Sun, etc...)

Monty said...

Answering John:

Yes, the current MySQL version under GPL costs 0$.

However, you probably don't want to forever use a version that is not updated or maintained. Sooner or later you have to upgrade or switch to something else.

When this happens, you are depending on who owns MySQL and how MySQL is developed. It's at this point you have to pay, if MySQL is owned by someone that doesn't have a reason to develop it further.

Albain DSM said...

Why shouldn't Oracle own MySQL when it already owns InnoDB, which is by far the most popular and comprehensive storage engine available for MySQL?

Do you have any objection to the way InnoDB has been handled by Oracle?

Anonymous said...

If the problem is having something that's good enough for LAMP, what about Drizzle? If I understand their FAQ correctly, there's no copyright assignment required, so no possibility of a proprietary or GPL buyout release. But they're still getting outside contributors.

Larry Alston said...

A strong and independent open source community behind any project is the key to success. MySQL's community was never completely independent certainly not as independent as PostgreSQL or Linux for instance. PostgreSQL facts also need some clarification, see here http://blogs.enterprisedb.com/ for some comments on that topic

Monty said...

Answering dmart:

Drizzle is also GPL, so it has the same problem as MySQL.

I also don't see any reason why Oracle would keep developing Drizzle (for many of the same reasons they are not likely to keep developing MySQL).

Stefan Kaltenbrunner said...

I think the PostgreSQL related comments in that post are rather in need of some clarification.
For example while EDB is a very important community member it by no means "dominating the postgresql market" (whatever that is actually supposed to mean).

EDB does have a commercial offering with some addons(a lot of them would likely not even accepted by the core project) the market share of that product compared to "normal" postgresql installations is likely way less than 1%.

Also while hiring "away" core people is a danger for every project (be it commercial or OSS) a complete community based project like PostgreSQL is way more robust in that regard caused by the large number of actual code submitters and also the diversity in their employeers.
A non community based OSS project that is mostly lead by a single entity (like MySQL historically has been) is way more vulnerable to that problem and this is what I think is actually happening now.

Anonymous said...

Hmmmm... All this seems surprising and silly, but knowing how the IT market works, why Monty did not think about that before selling to Sun's MySQL?.
IBM could have done the same by pushing for DB2 instead of MySQL and I do not recall hearing anyone complaining about IBM/Sun's preposition.

Kem Mason said...

Worst case Oracle acquires Sun, and immediately stops all development on MySQL.

Most people aren't going to be affected by this for years, and in the meantime, it opens up the doors for other, newer, possibly better designed open source databases. It seems extremely likely to me that if MySQL goes away, something else will be developed to replace it.

Don't get me wrong, I love MySQL, and have been using it for quite a few years, but I can't get behind an effort to regulate free enterprise more heavily in order to keep it alive.

Christopher said...

Signed and twittered.

As an ex-Oracle DBA I have really come to love mySQL for what it is, and would hate to see it change. My head spins trying to think of the damage that would be caused if the project was abandoned or dramatically changed.

I would like to think Oracle would maintain it properly and respectfully but I have a hard time having faith in that.

Anonymous said...

I teach a web development high school class to students in lower income brackets. We teach MySQL because it allows them to develop professional web pages for money which goes to supporting their parents and siblings, save for college and to help get them out of poverty. Oracle and Microsoft make great products. However, these products are expensive. Some of my students cannot afford decent clothes. If you start charging for MySQL you will further limit their ability to elevate themselves financially.

Anonymous said...

No mention here about SQLite. I see this being used in place of MySQL more and more. Even REAL Software has an SQL Server based on it. IMO it would be most effective to not worry so much about new development in MySQL because it already has 99% of what anyone needs. It just needs not to have any bugs. In the end we would have the most solid database in the world. New features could be add-ons and modules in the future built around the open source base. Just a thought.

Vancouver MySQL DBA said...

Monty, is MySQL AB too big/late to be supported by a smaller team of 50?

I don't see either IBM, Oracle or Microsoft has vested interests in helping MySQL thrive. IPO may be a good option. IBM may be an alternative given their track record with Linux.

IMO, things are on the wrong track ever since Innodb got bought by Oracle. Let's hope we are not too late to save MySQL.

Bryan said...

I've been using MySQL for 12 years now, and have grown both my small businesses around them, quite happily. However, I find myself at odds. I'm rarely in support of regulated competition. At some level, Oracle should be able to buy and kill whatever anyone wants to sell. If SUN's happy to sell something that it owns, and Oracle's happy to kill something that it purchased, it's simply not my decision, and shouldn't be regulated. Certainly it'd be bad for the community -- and for my businesses. But I couldn't stand against Oracle's freedom without standing against my own -- practiced or otherwise.

So instead I will choose, in this case, not to stand against Oracle's freedom, but to stand with you Monty. I owe you plenty of respect. "I appreciate your work." So I'll do what you tell me to do.

Anonymous said...

Its very sad to hear this. But after reading your post my conclusion is that all open source projects are dying becuase they lack funds in one or another way or they don't have time becuase they are working somewhere else to generate funds.

Don't you think it is time to forget "Open Source" and make a new license system called "Low Cost" ? So that developers who are putting in their efforts can get a pretty good share and make money for their living and research or whatever and they can't even think of selling "Low Cost" softwares and companies like Oracle can't even think of buying coz its already "Paid".

Anyways these are just my personal suggestions. I like free stuff also ! :-p so I am with you anyways.


Anonymous said...

This happened before, when Borland published a version of InterBase as open-source. A short while afterwards, it became closed-source again. But it had been open enough for an alternate database system to evolve, called FireBird. Both databases are still reasonable compatible with each other and aren't really competing but are evolving together.

Why would this not happen with MySQL? The community could branch off, creating "OurSQL" and Oracle can have their closed-sourced version if they want.

JRobiii said...

Hi Monty, I'm not a huge open source fan, but in this case I agree with your position. I think that this is a kin to Microsoft purchasing Linux. The best economic reason for strong open source products is that they provide competition for the big names in the industry.

Thank you for your work,

Jim Roberts

Tony said...

As a strong supporter of open source development and MySQL, I was appalled when our own government gave thumbs up to this purchase in such a rapid fashion, and only the EU had the common sense to challenge Oracle's plans.

I have been in IT consulting business since the late 70's, (working with SUN products in the last few years) and only a fool would believe that Oracle purchased Sun for anything other than to kill MySQL. That's a personal opinion, knowing how certain megalomaniacs work. If this purchase goes through it will be a travesty to the open source community, and to other open source projects that companies like Oracle, who make billions in unfair pricing practices, can afford to stump on their free and open source competition.

Pedro Algarvio, aka, s0undt3ch said...

While I no longer use or will ever use MySQL(I personaly prefer PostgreSQL), I adopt the free and open source policy for all my projects and with that in mind, having a project "die" like this is a "no good". So, I'll also sign the petition.

Osteo said...

How about OpenOffice ? Will it be too in the hands of Oracle. Being involved in purchasing, I saw that Oracle is a pretty tough company to deal with.

Ad Manager said...

This post is very useful to be understand all the relevant issues and facts around the petition. However, it is a bit long and could use a summary and should be featured on HelpMySQL.org for those go directly to that site to understand why they should care/support.

Steve Magruder said...

First of all, as a web programmer, I have found that the most critical pieces of a web application, in terms of where innovation normally comes from, is in the PHP or JavaScript code, not the database. For most applications I have seen, the database merely stores indexed data in tables. So, migrating many applications to using PostgreSQL would be somewhat straightforward, although I don't claim it to be "easy", due to the need to understand some differences in PostgreSQL's variant of SQL.

Second, some major web applications already work with several databases. phpBB, for example, will work with MySQL, PostgreSQL, Firebird, SQL Server, Oracle, etc.

Third, the current community version of MySQL is very stable and certainly very usable for a good long time to come even if it isn't updated. Again, the biggest innovations don't really seem to depend upon the database side, except perhaps in some enterprise environments. At any rate, there would be plenty of time for seriously developed websites to migrate to using a different database, if need be.

In short, MySQL could be closed off, and most of us will ultimately be all right.

However, I do agree with the position that, overall, it would be far less costly for the web community to save MySQL from Oracle's clutches. It just wouldn't destroy most of us if that actually occurs.

Unknown said...

I read somewhere sometime ago that Google had made many changes to MySQL and that they use it for many things internally. They surely could afford to buy MySQL. I know some people have a bone to pick with them but overall, I see no real issue. I think that they do quite a bit to help the open source market. If I knew of someone at Google to solicit over this, I would. At least if Google owned MySQL, we know that Oracle surely could not buy Google. LOL

Anonymous said...

This is not the time to debate if there are other alternative to mySQL.

This is the time to save mySQL.

Anonymous said...

First of all, I would like to thank you Monty for your wonderful work.

About Oracle's deal, I think the situation is pretty straightforward: we have one of the major database vendors in the world buying one of its major competitors.

One can agree or not, but the fact is after the deal, if it goes through, there will be LESS competition in the database market, not more.

So this is IMHO the simple reason why the EC should stop the deal, and why I am a bit disappointed with the US being so quick about giving a thumbs up on it.

Anonymous said...

As a response to those who spoke about the danger of Linux or PostgreSQL being bought up.
Unlike MysQL the PostgreSQL and Linux projects are wholly community owned. There is no entity to buy up like with JBoss, InnoDB, MySQL AB or Sun.
And the 2 aforementioned projects have a lot of backing of commercial companies that employ a lot of the core developers for the reason that they use and/or make money with services for these projects.
Buying core developers away is always a danger that any company faces, including Oracle.

Helen Hunt said...

As a huge open source advocate myself, I will support the petition not to approve the takeover. I know what the take over would mean for the future of open source and the internet as a whole.

If Oracle is given the green light, that would signal the end of MySQL as we know it today. So, let's all get behind the campaign and try to sign the petition today.

Ron at CM said...

Without a doubt, there will be less competition in the database arena, just as there was in the ERP arena when Oracle digested and puked up JD Edwards and PeopleSoft. And a dozen other formerly competitive areas--dozens of companies, and thousands of lives disrupted--all for the sake of a bigger boat.

The real question is whether or not the EU has the cojones to stand up to Oracle.

C said...

Thanks Monty for letting me know of this petition by e-mail. I have read and signed the petition. We should continue spreading the voice about this because your e-mail campaign seems to work (or at least it worked on me because, otherwise, I wouldn't be even aware of the problem).

usagemayvary said...

so why exactly do you think BSD is better than GPL? I fail to see why something that is currently fork-able should be put into BSD where forking is not an option.

Anonymous said...


Blackeagle said...

"I think that this is a kin to Microsoft purchasing Linux."

Of course, Microsoft can't really "buy Linux", because it's a truly free software project, leading to it being supported by a wide variety of different vendors and volunteers. The copyrights are held by so many different people and organizations it would be impossible for Microsoft or anyone else to buy it. Same goes for other major open source projects: they copyrights are either owned by hundreds of contributors, or held by a non-profit that isn't vulnerable to being bought up by the opposition.

On the other hand, MySQL's non-free dual licencing policies made it a one company show from the beginning. This makes it possible for Oracle to buy it. I think Monty needs to acknowledge that this is ultimately a problem of his own making, in that it ultimately stems from his decision to set up MySQL as a for-profit company rather than a true free software project.

Anonymous said...

I see all the comments that go against the deal between Oracle and Sun. But what about the overall picture? If the deal does not go through Sun will not exist to develop MySQL anymore anyways. Worst case scenario Oracle keeps their promise of supporting MySQL. As for educational uses in schools, well MS Access is downloadable and free to use by Educational Institutions and since MySQL, MS Access and Oracle all use the same SQL that was created by IBM then I am sure that if you can develop on one you can develop on them all. Or at least that is what my Database Instructor told us.

So the big question is if you stop this acquisition what happens to all the Sun employees who work on systems and software other then MySQL? Oh you probably do not care as it doesn't concern you. I understand that Oracle will cut quite a few jobs but not as many as Sun would have to if the deal is stopped. So what about all those innocent people? Do you have a response for that?

Joel Garry said...

Did Oracle kill Rdb? No, DEC killed Rdb, and Larry picked up the pieces, including intellectual property and customers. As a result, large numbers of companies migrated from proprietary OS's like VMS to unix, with Oracle on it. Oracle incorporated many facets of Rdb, which was superior to the contemporaneous Oracle (in many peoples' opinion).

I think you are ignoring a big part of what Larry has shown he knows: It's not the database, it's the app. All us db geeks too easily lose sight of that.

I think Larry would just use MySQL as a marketing tool to attract the lower end. Nothing wrong with that. As a db geek, I personally have problems with db's that don't have transactional control figured out, letting economics allow that would be the bigger mistake.

Much as I like free things (in all the meanings - and I advocate free broadband for all, supported by higher taxes on those who can pay), I don't see that Oracle "killing off" MySQL would be so bad. I just don't accept your insistence that they will.

What Larry said before "exploit it:"

...a company like Oracle is free to take it for nothing, include it in our products and charge for support, and that's what we'll do. So it is not disruptive at all – you have to find places to add value. Once open source gets good enough, competing with it would be insane. Keep in mind it's not that good in most places yet. We're a big supporter of Linux. At some point we may embed Linux in all of our products and provide support.

As a db geek, I point that right at you - MySQL is not good enough.

word: sicksw

Alricky said...

Monty, I support you. I believe that MySQL should be free for all even if it is owned by a competing company. I could care less about Sun employees. The main purpose of MySQL was to provide an alternative that is available to everyone. My stance on this matter is to let MySQL continue to be an alternative!

In my opinion I would think that this was all a plan. Probably Oracle wouldn't look twice at Sun if it didn't had MySQL. If that is not the case I still think there is something fishy in the whole deal. It's only been a year since Sun purchased MySQL!

Thanks for all your hard work!

NetwiseIT said...

I am concerned about the loss of MySQL as an open source project. I myself have only been using MySQL with PHP for about a year to develop websites now and the thought that MySQL could be killed off is a shame. From all the previous comments though I have not seen anything that says what's oracles plans are for the future of MySQL. Have oracle come out with a statement about what it plans for MySQL's future - surely there should be something in the sale agreement about what oracle plans for MySQL's future / is SUN just not bothered and is looking for the dollar bills.

I want to support the blocking of the sale of MySQL to oracle as it's future is dubious to say the least if the sale goes through. I've also heard too many negative comments about oracle - it's pricing, it's products to ever use any of their services.

A question about MariaDB - How will MariaDB compare to MySQL and it's compatibility with web development languages with a further note: Many web hosting providers use allow MySQL websites to run, if oracle do kill MySQL what will be the replacement? Will all websites developed with MySQL have to be re-developed to be compatible with oracle's db services or are we also going to see the demise of certain web programming languages as a result.

To conclude: Vive la revelution - Long live MYSQL (If I have any say!).

Anonymous said...

(cont from part 1)

Part 2:

- You say Sun "... didn't buy control of MySQL as an open source project. You can't buy an open source project with money."

- You say "I don't know if there ever has been a successful fork of a big infrastructure program like MySQL." and then go on to describe the challenges you are facing doing exactly that with MariaDB.

I find these two statements inconsistent. A core aspect of any open source project is that it is forkable, and the success of any fork is determined by the community and their desire to use that fork, or not. Do you believe that the open source model works, or not? If it does, then you have nothing to fear from Oracle. If it does not, that isn't Oracle's fault, it's a fault of the model itself.

- You say "We also have to recognize that it's Oracle that is holding Sun hostage just to get MySQL. Oracle could have got the deal closed very quickly if they had divested MySQL and just forked it." and 'Tony' says "I have been in IT consulting business since the late 70's, (working with SUN products in the last few years) and only a fool would believe that Oracle purchased Sun for anything other than to kill MySQL.".

I hate to burst your bubble, but you are overestimating the importance of MySQL. It's true that MySQL is a significant part of the Oracle-Sun
Deal and one of many pieces of Sun that Oracle clearly wants (otherwise they would have simply divested it, as you point out). But MySQL is simply one piece of a much larger puzzle. Oracle has made it very clear it wants to transform itself from a software company to a systems company. This deal will fulfill much of that in one stroke. The various software and hardware products in Sun and the engineers who make those products will all contribute. It's not all about MySQL.

In the end I don't expect that this effort to petition governments to block the deal will be successful. Any body such as the EC that is reviewing the facts will come to the same conclusion: there is no justification for blocking the deal given the statements that Oracle made in December regarding their plans for MySQL.

Once the deal closes, people such as yourself will need to make a choice to work with Oracle on MySQL or not, and focus on making your own fork a success or not, and not blame others if your own endeavors are not successful.

If you are brave enough to allow this comment to be posted, feel free to delete this sentence (or not, your choice).

Anonymous said...

For the people who actually think that Oracle is buying Sun sorely for the reason to kill mySQL need to get a grip.

Sun is being bought out because of Java, no other reason.

MySQL and Oracle do not compete in the same markets. No one using Oracle, would consider MySQL and vice versa.

Yes, Oracle is an evil company. Monty has only himself to blame.

Anonymous said...

"Oracle doesn't have competing products for Java and Open Office, so there is no reason to assume that Oracle would not take good care of them and generate money from them."

You forget that Oracle owns BEA's JRockit JVM.

Mimenta said...

Hi Monty. from Melbourne Australia.
I lecture in IT and also run a blo here with 1.42 million readers.

I am not convinced that Oracle will kill MySQL but this take over could let them do it so I'm with you, let's "play safe" and insure that it remains free for all.

Schools here often use MySQL for teaching databases, because it is rock solid and free and they don't have a lot to spend on software. If MySQL vanishes it would mean they would either close the courses down (most likely) or pay for MS Access.

When a free tool is lost to commercial interests we get back a buggy, unsecured expensive copy and development slows down until hackers get so fed up they write a clone (eg. Tiny XP) then the litigation starts.

If Oracle were a collection of saints with the purest intentions, I still say secure MySQL by stopping the takeover.

I have taken the liberty of quoting you on my blog (www.mimentum.com).
Hope you don't mind (if so let me know via www.mimenta.com or mimenta@gmail.com)

Sorry to jump the gun here but we feel this matter is urgent.



gyzar said...


i created a facebook group with this thread (and used your text and linked it to you site).

perhaps you might want to join it ...

Tore B. Krudtaa said...

Would be interesting to see what the agreement was between MySQL and Sun, when Sun bought MySQL.

If the agreement was that Sun should keep MySQL open source the same way it was before the take over, then would not that be good arguments for EU to prevent Oracle to take over MySQL?

Could someone here please show a link to the agreement between MySQL and Sun (the short version, please) in relation to open source and licensing?

Term paper said...

I also don't see any reason why Oracle would keep developing Drizzle (for many of the same reasons they are not likely to keep developing MySQL).

Quran said...

It's simple matter we have to understand that Oracle only wants to buy MySql to have a monopoly in the market of database and the only sufferer will be the user.

hmp49 said...

Unfortunately, this was inevitable when mySQL was sold to SUN.

With SUN's financial problems, this asset would have been sold off eventually, and since as stated it's easily worth a billion to Oracle to kill mySQL, SUN would likely have sold it to Oracle somewhere down the road.

I certainly don't fault the mySQL developers for cashing in on all their hard work. But the game was over when that happened, and this is just the inevitable consequences

tava tea said...

MySQL for teaching databases, because it is rock solid and free and they don't have a lot to spend on software. If MySQL vanishes it would mean they would either close the courses down (most likely) or pay for MS Access.

Steve said...

@tava tea: you can always use MariaDB, or even migrate to PostgreSQl - they are both free open source alternatives.

ani321india said...

I read somewhere sometime ago that Google had made many changes to MySQL and that they use it for many things internally. They surely could afford to buy MySQL. I know some people have a bone to pick with them but overall, I see no real issue.
model kaise bane