Oracle buys Innobase

Jim C. Nasby wrote:

http://lnk.nu/prnewswire.com/4dv.pl

Amazing. You have to love the totally unrelated license mention Oracle
added to the press release:

InnoDB is not a standalone database product: it is distributed as a
part of the MySQL database. InnoDB's contractual relationship with
MySQL comes up for renewal next year. Oracle fully expects to negotiate
an extension of that relationship.

Read $$$.

This is the logical way Oracle would attack a competitor (buy up a key
piece of their technology). Oracle looked for MySQL's easiest weakness
to exploit, and found it. It isn't even vaguely cloaked, because InnoDB
doesn't even have a db product, it is just licensed by MySQL. This
certainly puts a dent in the MySQL 5.0 press buzz, which I suppose was
part of the timing.

Do open source users want licensed technology from a company owned by
Oracle? I doubt it. My guess is that the InnoDB license will now be
used as FUD against MySQL perpetually.

This might also be related to the article by the MySQL CEO saying they
are not competing with Oracle:

http://www.cbronline.com/article_news.asp?guid=9231B8BD-3788-4DB2-B85F-707E75857B58

This might be a sort of detente saying MySQL will not move into Oracle
accounts. Certainly the MySQL CEO must have known this was coming, so
his comments now appear in a different light.

What is our vulnerability? Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL
developers. I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc
(Marc, are you for sale? :-) ) and own the domains and trademark.

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce,

What is our vulnerability?  Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL
developers.  I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc
(Marc, are you for sale? :-):-) ) and own the domains and trademark.

Well, that *is* a serious concern. That's why Marc and I are working on
making sure these things are legally protected.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Fri, Oct 07, 2005 at 03:02:57PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

What is our vulnerability? Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL
developers. I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc
(Marc, are you for sale? :-) ) and own the domains and trademark.

That strikes me as a good reason to get the trademarks out from any
one person's control. While I certainly trust Marc not to abuse
them, nothing is safer than institutional protection. In the
unlikely event that Marc was unable to defend the things he holds in
trust for the community, some agent could determine that the best
settlement could be achieved by selling the "asset" to someone.

A

--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
In the future this spectacle of the middle classes shocking the avant-
garde will probably become the textbook definition of Postmodernism.
--Brad Holland

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its
going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most
likely:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;0

Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we
may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful thinking.

Cheers,

Aly.

--
Aly S.P Dharshi
aly.dharshi@telus.net

"A good speech is like a good dress
that's short enough to be interesting
and long enough to cover the subject"

Aly S.P Dharshi wrote:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

This will happen eventually, there is no doubt, Sun seems like its
going to eventually integrate PostgreSQL into Solaris as a pkg most
likely:

http://www.computerworld.com.au/index.php/id;116679278;fp;16;fpid;0

Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we
may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful thinking.

I have seen @sun.com posters already, so it has started.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

Given that MyISAM is still their first love, I don't think that outcome
is preposterous at all. If Oracle tries to squeeze too hard, that's
probably exactly what they'll do. It'll put a bit of a dent in their
claims to having transaction support, but I think their bread-and-butter
applications are still mostly MyISAM.

regards, tom lane

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

What is our vulnerability? Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL
developers. I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc
(Marc, are you for sale? :-) ) and own the domains and trademark.

I'm not for sale, else I would have sold a *long* time ago ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

It may be hard for u to resist if those wacky guyz from Redwood offered eight figures (and I'm not counting the ones to the right of the decimal point).

--Luss

________________________________

From: pgsql-advocacy-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Marc G. Fournier
Sent: Fri 10/7/2005 4:14 PM
To: Bruce Momjian
Cc: Jim C. Nasby; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; PostgreSQL advocacy
Subject: Re: [pgsql-advocacy] [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase

On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

What is our vulnerability? Oracle offering big-money jobs to PostgreSQL
developers. I think that is our only weakness, unless they buy Marc
(Marc, are you for sale? :-) ) and own the domains and trademark.

I'm not for sale, else I would have sold a *long* time ago ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?

http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> schrieb:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400

InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.

My guess: a fork in the future.

Regards, Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082�, E 13.56889�

(This is via Exchange Web client, I apologize in advance for any htmlitudeiness of this message)

What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a bit to include it, or rip it out.

So, now Oracle can just raise the price high enough that either the commercial version of MySQL has to go up to cover the price, or they are forced to remove it. If MySQL makes the choice to remove it from the commercial version, they will likely take it out of the GPL version as well, since they likely don't want the commercially licensed version to be the red headed step child of the GPL version, since their business plan relies on convincing people they need the commercial license as much as possible.

-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-general-owner@postgresql.org on behalf of Andreas Kretschmer
Sent: Sat 10/8/2005 3:34 AM
To: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> schrieb:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400

InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.

My guess: a fork in the future.

Regards, Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect. (Linus Torvalds)
Kaufbach, Saxony, Germany, Europe. N 51.05082°, E 13.56889°

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> schrieb:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400

InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.

My guess: a fork in the future.

This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as it was before. One can
only take the last version, released under GPL, and build a GPL-only
project based on it.

Oracle bought the copyright of InnoDB with the company. So if anything
goes wrong during their upcoming relicensing talk, MySQL can of course
fork off a GPL version of InnoDB, but that fork cannot be included in
their commercial version of MySQL. What value would that fork have for
them then? Using a pure GPL fork of InnoDB is in conflict with their own
licensing scheme and I don't think MySQL is in the position to say bye
to dual licensing.

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Jan Wieck wrote:

On 10/8/2005 4:34 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:

Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> schrieb:

Ultimately, MySQL should drop InnoDB.

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?3,48400,48400#msg-48400

InnoDB is GPL. But, i'm also confused.

My guess: a fork in the future.

This whole GPL forking thing is still the same as it was before. One can
only take the last version, released under GPL, and build a GPL-only
project based on it.

Oracle bought the copyright of InnoDB with the company. So if anything
goes wrong during their upcoming relicensing talk, MySQL can of course
fork off a GPL version of InnoDB, but that fork cannot be included in
their commercial version of MySQL. What value would that fork have for
them then? Using a pure GPL fork of InnoDB is in conflict with their own
licensing scheme and I don't think MySQL is in the position to say bye
to dual licensing.

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed
by the patent holder.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Jan Wieck wrote:

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed
by the patent holder.

That too.

What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL
side are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving
about licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the
rest of the statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find
in every other press release.

It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to
come through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I
can't believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

Hi

That is terrific news being a former employee of MySQL - Oracle buys
Innobase. I was never a fan of MySQL, personally but when Marten Mikos and
the rest of the business wonks joined the Company I knew then it was time
to get out. I met the author of Innobase once at the first MySQL employees
meeting. I was asked what for an opinion on Heikki Tuuri. I came straight
to point and told Monty and David (Axmark) that Heikki Tuuri can not be
trusted. It seems I was right. Mr Tuuri has no interest in supporting the
OS commumity. His only interest is in making money. My gut feeling now is
that eventually Oracle will buy off Innobase lock stock and barell Then
Innonbase will get consigned to File 13. I now see MySQL heading for a long
slow death; it couldn't happen to a nicer group of people :) Thank God for
PostreSQL

At 18:42 08/10/2005, Jan Wieck wrote:

On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Jan Wieck wrote:

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed
by the patent holder.

That too.

What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL
side are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving
about licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the rest
of the statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find in every
other press release.

It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to come
through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I can't
believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance.

Jan

--
#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings

---

Regards
John Dean,
co-author of Rekall,
the only alternative
to MS Access

Jan Wieck wrote:

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need
to brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

Maybe Oracle will buy Sleepycat too, and foreclose that option ;-)

On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, Jan Wieck wrote:

On 10/8/2005 12:13 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Jan Wieck wrote:

To have a really good position when talking to Oracle, MySQL will need to
brush up on the BDB support, and that pretty quick.

What about the patents InnoDB might hold? It would be easier to enforce
a patent based on the fact that they are using code actually developed
by the patent holder.

That too.

What strikes me a little odd is how brief the responses from the MySQL side
are. Marten Mickos welcomes them, does some 2 sentence handwaving about
licensing and the glorious freedom of open source, and then the rest of the
statement is the usual blah blah about MySQL that you find in every other
press release.

It almost seems as if MySQL wasn't exactly prepared for this deal to come
through - or worse, that they are surprised about it. Although I can't
believe they wouldn't have known about it in advance.

Or, they knew about it and have some sort of contigency plan already in
place for when the license does expire ... ?

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy@hub.org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Bruce, Aly,

Hopefully that should make PostgreSQL shine even more. Maybe we
may also see some @sun.com contributers, okay that maybe wishful
thinking.

I have seen @sun.com posters already, so it has started.

Actually, the Sun folks have been contributing indirectly for a while, and are
working on getting Solaris binary packaging organized. They're just not big
on joining mailing lists, something we need to educate them on.

--
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:

What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail
version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a
bit to include it, or rip it out.

I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.

What am I missing?

--
... _._. ._ ._. . _._. ._. ___ .__ ._. . .__. ._ .. ._.
Felix Finch: scarecrow repairman & rocket surgeon / felix@crowfix.com
GPG = E987 4493 C860 246C 3B1E 6477 7838 76E9 182E 8151 ITAR license #4933
I've found a solution to Fermat's Last Theorem but I see I've run out of room o

El Sáb 08 Oct 2005 18:11, felix@crowfix.com escribió:

On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:

What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail
version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a
bit to include it, or rip it out.

I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.

What am I missing?

They can't enforce a commercial licence over a GPL aplication.

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------