i agree with you, Since mysql code is GPL anyone can start developing further wither another name say 'MySQL NEW'
I don't understand how any company can own since mysql code is GPL. On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 11:48 AM, mos <mo...@fastmail.fm> wrote: > At 07:13 PM 4/21/2009, you wrote: > >> It will great if the MYSQL guys were to buy mysql from Oracle for half the >> price that Sun paid. >> > > Yeah, I'm sure Widenous is writing a check as we speak. <rofl> He is busy > working on Maria, a stripped down branch of MySQL. > http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2008/01/maria-engine-is-released.html > > They would come out making lots of money and back controlling their own >> destiny. >> > > Anyone can have control of the MySQL code because it is GPL. The only thing > stopping them is time and $$$ to organize another company, maybe call it > MySQL CD?? > > Mike > > > > :-) >> >> On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM, Arthur Fuller <fuller.art...@gmail.com >> >wrote: >> >> > I hereby bet the farm that this shall not occur. I have $10 to say that >> > this >> > shall not occur. >> > >> > a) Who is going to challenge the deal? >> > b) What possible purpose would it serve to interr MySQL? >> > c) Assuming there is some reason for b) above, why incur the wrath of >> the >> > MySQL community and their possible bail-outs? Nothing gained and >> everything >> > lost, in such a move. >> > d) If we know anything, we know that Scott and Larry are not fools. >> > e) In the grand scheme of things, the MySQL piece of this pie is peanuts >> > and >> > perhaps less. This acquisition is about the big picture (hardware >> platform >> > + >> > existing Sparc base + Java, etc.). MySQL, as much as we love it, is a >> tiny >> > teensy part of this acquisition, and my guess is that Scott and Larry >> are >> > much more focussed on the other parts (e.g. end-to-end solutions >> extending >> > from the hardware to the middleware to the Oracle apps, etc.) and in >> this >> > ballpark MySQL is an interesting tidbit but not at all the focus of >> their >> > efforts. Think big, baby. MySQL in this context is a tiny little ripple >> in >> > the pond, having little or nothing to do with Scott/Larry's plans. >> > >> > Viewed from this perspective, MySQL becomes a viable alternative to such >> > offerings as SQL Express from MS. If for no other reasons than marketing >> > imperatives, I am confident that Scott and Larry will choose not to kill >> > MySQL but rather regard it as both an entry platform and a position from >> > which to upgrade to Oracle. >> > >> > Make no mistake about this. There are very sound reasons to upgrade to >> > Oracle. Cost is of course a serious issue. But Oracle can do things, and >> > has >> > various top-end vehicles, that MySQL cannot approach. Consider, to take >> > just >> > one example, Trusted Oracle, upon which numerous banks bet their bottom >> > dollar. Add to this the numerous Oracle Apps. >> > >> > I am no champion of Oracle in particular, but I do rtheecognize what >> > platforms X and Y can do. If the game is defined as retrieval amongst >> > several GB of data, then MySQL has a chance. If the game is retrieval >> > amongst several PB of data, with security, then I bet on Oracle. >> Granted, >> > this move requires a team of DBAs etc., but if you are dealing with >> > PetaBytes then I suggest that you think carefully about which vendor is >> > prepared to take you there. >> > >> > Just my $0.02 in this debate. I don't see MySQL and Oracle as >> competitive >> > products. In fact I see the opposite: Oracle gets to occupy a space in >> the >> > open-source community while simultanwously offering an upgrade path to >> > multi-petabyte solutions, serious security, and so on. I don't think >> that >> > Scott and Larry are out to hurt the MySQL community, and I'm prepared to >> > bet >> > that they will invest in the next version of MySQL, You might disagree >> but >> > I >> > challenge you to answer Why? Sheer rapaciousness? That doesn't make >> sense. >> > MySQL has garnered numerous big-time players, and in what possible >> interest >> > would Oracle jeapordize these investments? >> > >> > As several writers on this thread have said, if Oracle muddies the >> waters >> > then they are prepared to move to PostGres and/or several other >> > alternatives, not least to take the MySQL sources to a new playpen. It >> is >> > clearly not in the interests of Oracle to let this happen. Far more >> > interesting is to fold the MySQL project into Oracle's overall Linux >> > project. Continue to offer MySQL for free, work on transport vehicles >> that >> > let MySQL people migrate effortlessly to Oracle, etc. >> > >> > I don't mean to pretend to read Scott and Larry's minds here. But I >> think >> > that the MySQL part of this acquisition, while interesting, is a small >> part >> > of the rationale for buying Sun. The serious interest is in acquiring an >> > end-to-end solution, as yet offered by nobody, including IBM and MS. >> This >> > is >> > the most significant part of this acquisition. Imagine being the >> > salesperson >> > of said stack. "We have the hardware and the operating system and the >> > middleware and the front-end. Click and go." >> > >> > IMO this is a truly formidable argument. In practice, it could be >> delivered >> > as an appliance and/or a blade. And if you don't think this is >> formidable, >> > then wake up and smell the coffee. This could well leap-frog certain >> other >> > competitors -- which is not to say they won't catch up eventually, but >> it >> > is >> > to say that Oracle has raised the bar and it's time for competitors such >> as >> > MS to jump through several flaming hoops. >> > >> > On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 6:57 PM, John Daisley < >> > john.dais...@mypostoffice.co.uk> wrote: >> > >> > > MySQL will live on regardless of who owns the brand. First and >> foremost >> > > MySQL is a community and that community will continue to develop MySQL >> > and >> > > take it in the direction they want it to go. Sure Oracle could try and >> > > force some 'features' or changes through but if the community didn't >> like >> > > them the community would just keep developing 'pre-oracle' MySQL, even >> if >> > > that happens to be under a different name. >> > > >> > > Personally I would be surprised if the Oracle deal goes unchallenged. >> I >> > > don't think Oracle really 'want' MySQL as it makes very little money >> and >> > > it raises competition concerns. I wouldn't be surprised if Oracle were >> to >> > > look at offloading MySQL to ease competition fears, perhaps to someone >> > > like Google who are already heavily involved in the development of >> MySQL. >> > > >> > > >> > > On Tue, 2009-04-21 at 22:36 +0100, Andy Shellam wrote: >> > > >> > > > Personally (and I hope I'm wrong) I don't believe there's room in >> > > > Oracle's portfolio for two diverse RDBMSs, and I envisage them >> > > > re-branding MySQL as an Oracle open-source derivative which begins >> as >> > > > being the MySQL codebase but is slowly migrated toward Oracle's >> > > > engineering, to ease the transition for growing companies moving >> from >> > > > MySQL/Oracle open-source to the Oracle enterprise versions. >> > > >> > > >> > > -- >> > > MySQL General Mailing List >> > > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql >> > > To unsubscribe: >> > > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=fuller.art...@gmail.com >> > > >> > > >> > >> > > > -- > MySQL General Mailing List > For list archives: http://lists.mysql.com/mysql > To unsubscribe: > http://lists.mysql.com/mysql?unsub=prajapat...@gmail.com > > -- Krishna Chandra Prajapati
