So Monty now claims that Oracle is MySQL's main competitor. Given that for years MySQL AB has said the exact opposite is kinda odd. They did have a short run in with SAP but that didn't go any where .. well it resulted in MySQL loosing focus, adding tons of barely functioning features which ended up in this entire roadmap debacle we are still suffering through. Anyways the EC has thrown in their hat to stop the deal. Björn seems to share their concerns and so do many others it seems. I still don't get it. This is my attempt at clarifying my point of view and also making sure that people remember the proper terminology (stop using commercial and proprietary as synonyms).

First this all revolves around the assumption that Oracle lets MySQL linger.

Secondly, anyone can provide commercial support for MySQL and actually many companies do already. If Oracle doesn't and if there is a need for a global support company, its the job of the market to build one. That being said I think there currently are enough options available already that even if Sun's current offering fades away if Oracle does decide to not continue their offerings in the same price range, it will not hurt MySQL's image in a significant way.

Thirdly the only thing that Oracle would get through the deal if MySQL remains included is software developers and the copyright which would enable them to sell proprietary licenses. This enables them to become the prime company for providing support. If they decide to not do that, people will leave if other people offer them jobs doing MySQL stuff. So the expertise is not "lost" to the world. Actually when people questioned the sum Sun paid for MySQL AB, they replied one of the main focuses of the deal was to get all these experienced open source developers.

So the only topic that has any relevance is if its an issue with Oracle decide to not sell proprietary licenses. Given that both MySQL AB and Sun agreed that the future is with support and not proprietary licensing fees, I do not see where the issue is.

BTW: I am certainly no Oracle fanboy but some people might benefit from going down a trip to memory lane and find that Oracle was one of the first companies of any significance to offer their software supported on Linux. Today they, like all of the big companies, allocate resources to open source and yes I do not see how InnoDB or the MySQL eco-system has lost by Oracle owning InnoDB.

I do see one valid argument that both Monty and Richard mention: "MySQL is only available under GPL2 and can't be combined with GPL3 code". For some reason he does not believe to be significant .. or rather the importance of having someone sell proprietary licenses is way more important to him.

To me this all feels very hypocritical. You cannot first sell your company for a billion and when you discover that the buyers want to do things different, go complain. If you play the big money game, then you should know that you are giving away control. The moral of the story, do not go bring in VC's (or work for a VC funded company) if you want to stay in control. End of story.

My suggestion would be if you do not get it, it is not worth to claim it on public, you make yourself funny.

I get it, but it's silly, considering that Oracle owns Innobase Oy, and thus make a ton of money on the revenue from InnoDB Hot Backup. Why would they kill MySQL? There's no motivation to do so, and it just seems to me like people just don't want Oracle owning MySQL on principle, not on any factual basis.

@surfer: I think the main thing I have shown is my inability to construct so easily readable sentences with conditional phrases.

@Sheeri: Right.