Many providers embedd MySQL with their commercial products including Adobe, Macfee, Nokia, Symantec and ScienceLogic just to name a few. In addition most commercial third party storage engines have for years been forced to provided very customized versions of MySQL due to limitations in the storage engine API. These situations require a license agreement necessary with the trademark holder of MySQL. The Oracle Corporation EU Statement released on December 14, 2009 has carefully worded in the statement about these OEM licenses and storage engine providers there will be no changes for 5 years.

One specific detail is missing, what happens then?

As an individual that uses, recommends, promotes and advises clients especially on various storage engine …

Image via Wikipedia

Oracle has published their promises which have reportedly gone a long way to appeasing the EU, so the likely outcome is the takeover of Sun will be approved in January.

My own personal opinion has been the anti-competitive stance really didn’t hold much water.  Reading Oracle’s promises, none appear very extreme (largely agreeing to maintain the status quo) which would lead you to question why it has taken so long to sort out.  But importantly for getting this resolved they are a concession by Oracle and a win for the EU.

 Hopefully shortly the mop up can begin.

The full Oracle press release …

Lots of people writing about Snorkle again today ,Monty Says, help saving MySQL

He gives us different options, a , b or c .. but I , and some others, want an option d

No I don't trust Oracle, it's not like they have been a very good Open Source Citizen, yes they contribute to the kernel and other projects but my feeling says it's only because they have to (Kernel, Xen and others ) not because they Want to (thinking about Unfakable etc) , if they would really want to they probably would work with the CentOS community more etc, and as Monty mentions their InnoDB track record could be better.

But on the other hand I don't think the EU should block the deal because Monty wants his baby back , cheap , as honestly imvho that's what they really want, be able to buy MySQL back for a nice price, either beceause Oracle is being forced by the …

One of MySQL’s notable projects was splitting the product into two editions: Enterprise Edition and Community Edition. This move alienated many in the community, and failed to create meaningful differentiation on either side, even with a team of people beating the community bushes for “contributions.” The net differentiation was ultimately Jeremy Cole’s SHOW PROFILES functionality, which made Community better than Enterprise. Sun put less effort into making this split work, and eventually they abandoned it.

But that could change under Oracle’s stewardship. Oracle’s promises to maintain a GPL …

Oracle’s proposed acquisition of Sun Microsystems looks set for approval by the European Commission after the competition commission welcomed commitments from Oracle related to the future development and licensing of the open source MySQL database.

The EC has until January 27, 2010, to reach a final decision however it appears that significant progress has been made following hearings in Brussels last week where Oracle made its case for approving the acquisition and opponents including SAP, Microsoft and Monty Program AB argued against the proposed acquisition.

Oracle has published a list of ten commitments that it is prepared to make to assuage the EC’s concerns over the future of MySQL, which were quickly and enthusiastically welcomed by the European Commission.

Oracle’s commitments …

You’ve probably seen Monty’s post Help Saving MySQL. This is about

1. Development (will Oracle put significant effort into MySQL, actually innovating)
2. Brand (”MySQL” has a huge footprint), the trademark owner can enforce this – there have already been issues with companies offering MySQL related services via Google AdWords not being able to use the word MySQL in their ad text even though it was correctly used as an adjective.
3. Forking is fine, but still has to deal with the branding. For MySQL, that’s possibly the most significant issue of any OSS product ever encountered. You’re not competing against a company, but against an existing brand footprint that you (because of the trademark) have to steer clear of. So “just fork it” is not an easy or short term option, there’s more involved than …

I got a call from Monty today, and he told me that its crunch-time: the European Commission is about to come up with a decision on the status of Oracle’s purchase of Sun Microsystems. The part that interested me verbally, and he wrote (you should read: Monty says: Help saving MySQL), was this:

Instead of just working out this with the EC and agree on appropriate remedies to correct the situation, Oracle has instead contacted hundreds of their big customers and asked them to write to the EC and require unconditional acceptance of the deal.

Monty has a simple …

That’s right, I said InnoDB+, with a “plus” at the end. I didn’t know it existed until, while following some links from Monty’s appeal to save MySQL, I decided to read a Groklaw post that links to Eben Moglen’s letter to the EU Commission, which includes this text:

Innobase could therefore have provided an enhanced version of InnoDB, like Oracle’s current InnoDB+, under non-GPL license, …

I don’t know anything more. Do you?

Related posts:

1. What data types does your …

One week and a whole lot of snow later, it is time for the 173rd edition of Log Buffer, the weekly review of database blogs. MySQL goes first this week.

MySQL

On the MySQL Performance Blog, Peter Zaitsev and his readers discuss the question, how many partitions can you have? In Peter’s opinion, ” . . . be careful with number of partitions you use. Creating unused partitions for future use may cost you.”

Also, Peter’s colleague Aleksandr Kuzminsky announces the release of xtrabackup-1.0, an “open source online …

Matt Asay is right, in my opinion, to point out the inherent bias in the case Monty Widenius et al have made against Oracle’s potential ownership of MySQL. I would go further, however, in stating that the case being made against Oracle is flawed by the fact that it is so self-serving. For instance:

• I previously noted that the Widenius/Mueller case against Oracle owning Sun/MySQL is entirely dependent on the theory that Oracle will not invest in the ongoing development of MySQL, which is something it has publicly committed to doing.

• The case against Oracle owning Sun is also based on the theory …