Doesn't get it? The EC/EU ? Right. Then tell us, oh wise guy, why the creator of MySQL has sent an open letter to the EU saying not to let the deal go down? Or does he not get the idea behind Open Source either?

Oracle obtaining MySQL would create a kind of monopoly in the DB market, open source or not. It has nothing to do with the EU no understanding open source. It has every thing to do with a free market.

YOU may never have given a dime to MySQL AB or Sun, but thousands have--and that's how you got to get the software for free. As I understand it, that is the market that the EU aims to preserve--service providers for an open source database. In my view, they show a keen understanding of the commercial necessities of sustaining open source software. As for Oracle, (1) they have not endeared themselves to the EU regulators by waiting quite a long time before filing their application with them, hoping (wrongly, as it turned out) that they could force the issue after U.S. approval and (2) they disingenuously refuse to discuss a MySQL spinoff when that is a tiny part of the Sun deal. It would be good business to close the deal by spinning off MySQL, but it wouldn't be good for Larry's ego, so we have this unnecessary drama. That's the real shame.

And you say the EU doesn't understand Open Source? I'd say your idea is far into that 'perfect world' where needful things are spontaneously dealt with by people or companies with the capital, talent, and employee depth to simply take over a project such as MySQL and keep it moving forward.

You see, even though most GNU/Linux vendors include MySQL and more than a few small-midsize companies use it in-house or inside a product they make, they don't actually develop the project. Support and modification does not mean they are prepared to take on development.

SUN's business model with MySQL is that they have clients they sell MySQL to with service. These corporations and companies understand where SUN is taking MySQL in the future and for them it makes good sense to go this route. If Oracle got hold of SUN it is fully understood that MySQL will be shut down at best, undermined at worst because it competes with the Oracle Database in some markets. A project of this size and complexity pretty much requires a sponsor of some size to continue it. If a fork were required simply to continue it's existence, the codebase would suffer and the value offered by having a Free Software database with as much power as MySQL has would then be reduced or lost entirely.

In the slow economy we are in I feel for the folks at SUN that could loose their jobs if the company is not bailed out, but the decision of the EU is based on very broader criteria. And a couple hundred jobs doesn't show up on their scope.

I am glad the EU has enough ballz to say "NO" to something like this. Ideally SUN should get itself out of it's situation as any capitalist entity should be able to do.

While at first glance you may be right, the more I think about it the more I agree with the decision. The key issue is not about the flagship products *today* - clearly only a very small percentage of projects would be considering both MySQL and Oracle for their DB backend. So they are not competing products in one view of things. The problem is that MySQL has been slowly adding "big ticket" (clustering, datawarehousing, etc.) features that *do* compete with Oracle's DB offerings. Some are/were paid only features but the MySQL people (and the OSS community) would definitely like to be able to offer all the features Oracle (and IBM and MS) offer with their DB products. They would like to be seen as a viable alternative to the "big guys". It seems obvious that Oracle would *never* produce free, high quality open source products that directly take away from their high margin DB offerings. That would be bad for business. The general consensus seems to be that Oracle would continue to develop and promote MySQL for projects that would not use an Oracle product today, enabling them to get a vastly greater share of the market, and try to migrate customers to their premium products later. That is NOT good for the open source database world, as it removes (makes a lot harder anyway) a free high-end option from evolving.

I'm with Sean on this one. As far as I can see, the probable upside far outweighs the possible downside of allowing this merger.

I must confess I was highly sceptical when I first heard of the merger, especially relating to MySQL.

But I think the Oracle DB and MySQL are largely complimentary. Larry usually doesn't miss the chance to make a dollar, and he knows he can do that by continuing support and development of MySQL.

Furthermore, I reckon that even if Oracle have to spin off the MySQL portion of the business, or they do decide to try and kill it off, that merely presents a golden opportunity to resourceful people who can fill an obvious need in the market for MySQL corporate/business customers.

I think they probably just don't like Larry. Can't really blame them on that.

It is not that Oracle are buying an open source product.

It is because, having tried to buy the storage partners (InnoDB) and several others to slow down MySQL success in the market (Read a bit of the history of Oracles moves against MySQL in 2008 and 2007), they are now trying to remove choice from the customer.

Very quickly MySQL instead of being a reasonable offering in its own right (it was), would be reworked to have certain 'enterprise level' features put in the slow lane and would become deliberately marketed as 'cheapo Oracle'.

Then all you need is a bit of "you don't want our 'limited' version' you want the enterprise daddy Oracle 15g" or whatever - and corporate buyers would be subtely scared off major deployment on MySQL.

It isn't because MySQL are open source, it is because it is an attempt to remove from the market a competitors database offering.

Oracle should be happy with acquiring Solaris and Java and quit moaning about the database issue.