MySQL founder Michael Widenius concerned about sale to Oracle
In case you haven’t heard, Sun is being bought by Oracle. After dancing around the issue in blog posts over the past 8 months, MySQL developer-founder Michael “Monty” Widenius finally comes out and adamantly opposes MySQL’s role in the sale.
In a Dec. 12 blog post, Widenius tries to rally open source MySQL supporters in an effort to seek assurances from Oracle that the project will, in fact, stay open source. He makes a good case for a future Oracle decision to limit or close off the open source elements:
Oracle [has] to lower prices all the time to compete with MySQL when companies start new projects. Some companies even migrate existing projects from Oracle to MySQL to save money. Of course Oracle has a lot more features, but MySQL can already do a lot of things for which Oracle is often used…So I just don’t buy it that Oracle will be a good home for MySQL. A weak MySQL is worth about one billion dollars per year to Oracle, maybe more. A strong MySQL could never generate enough income for Oracle that they would want to cannibalize their real cash cow.
Anyone who’s loosely familiar with open source software knows that the community can execute the almighty fork, just pick up the code and go. But Widenius believes the code is only a portion of the equation, and that the economy around MySQL is vastly more important. Richard Stallman penned a letter in conjunction with Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) and the Open Rights Group (ORG) that succinctly describes the issue:
MySQL is made available to the public in two parallel ways. Most users obtain it as free/libre software under the GNU General Public License (GPL) version 2; the code is released in this way gratis. MySQL is also available under a different, proprietary license for a fee.
This approach was able to provide (1) an attractive platform for developers looking to use FLOSS, and secured MySQL enormous mind share, particularly in supporting content rich web pages and other Internet applications, and (2) the ability for paying clientèle to combine and distribute MySQL in customizations that they do not want to make available to the public as free/libre software under the GPL. With excellent management and considerable trust within the user community, MySQL became the gold standard for web based FLOSS database applications.
Bolding my emphasis, which is the key here. Most MySQL users don’t need licenses, for two reasons. First, other OSS projects naturally play very nicely with MySQL’s matching open source license. Second, websites that use proprietary code in conjunction with MySQL are clear because nothing is actually distributed, users simply visit a site. My company Fwd:Vault is a perfect example.
The remaining clients, who write software that gets distributed (think boxed software in a store), must utilize MySQL’s second, fee-based proprietary license. This is where the money is, and is the true engine that has powered MySQL’s rise over the last 20 years.
As any business owner can tell you, replicating a strong consumer base and community climate is nearly impossible. “If it would be easy to take over MySQL by just forking it,” says Widenius, “Sun would never have bought MySQL and Oracle would have forked MySQL a long time ago instead of now trying to buy it as part of the SUN deal.”
Now this whole system get’s handed to Oracle, who has a directly competing product and feels major price pressure due to MySQL’s free offering. I agree with Widenius on the eventual outcome, but he doesn’t have a legal leg to stand on here. He sold MySQL AB to Sun, and they can do whatever they want with it. If Sun gets swallowed by Oracle, MySQL goes alogn with it. That’s how businesses work. He can argue all day that the Sun deal was predicated on their track record for positively supporting FLOSS projects, but his control over MySQL’s future was out the door the moment the Sun deal was closed.
I’m a huge OSS proponent, but I’m a capitalist first. If the EC doesn’t find the sale to be monopolistic — keep in mind the USDOJ already approved the deal — then I wish Oracle the best of luck with their new purchase.
That being said, capitalism favors the huge MySQL install base in the longer term. If Oracle removes MySQL “the open source database” from the OSS environment, they’re going to leave a massive hole in the market, a hole that cannot be filled with Oracle’s overpriced high-end database software. A new product will rise to fill the void. Maybe it will be a MySQL fork, maybe it will be something new, but it will happen. MySQL did it once, why can’t someone else do it again?
And when you acknowledge the likelihood of that potential outcome, it makes Widenius’ entire protest seem self-interested. He’s not necessarily concerned with the open source database community, but his position within it. I have no doubt that his intentions are at least in part altruistic — replacing MySQL would be a torturous process — but I’m sure he’d rather see his baby leading the pack than some neophyte.
In short, if he’s just trying to protect his turf, is his mindset really any different from Oracle?
For me, the entire issue is summarized in the introduction of his protest post, “I have spent the last 27 years creating and working on MySQL and I hope, together with my team of MySQL core developers, to work on it for many more years.”
If that was the case, you shouldn’t have sold it off in the first place.
Data security without software or hardware
Thanks for the comments to my blog.
To answer a couple of your questions:
The European Commission (EC) does regard MySQL and Oracle to be competitive products; That is why they issued a statement of objection against the deal.
Oracle did a stunt in the last minute by contacting many of their big customers and got them to send letters to the EC where they asked EC to approve of the deal.
The reason for the petition at http://helpmysql.org is to also give the MySQL users a say in the matter.
“In short, if he’s just trying to protect his turf, is his mindset really any different from Oracle?”
It’s much more at stake to protect my turf. I am concerned about all MySQL users who has trusted something that I created and I am doing everything that I can to not betray their trust in MySQL.
“If that was the case, you shouldn’t have sold it off in the first place.”
I didn’t have a choice. This is explained in detail in my blog at http://monty-says.blogspot.com/2009/12/help-keep-internet-free.html#q20
However, we should not loose the big picture; The big losers if Oracle gets to own MySQL uncontrolled is potentially everyone that is depending on MySQL today. They have in this case to spend money and efforts to either switch to a closed source version of MySQL or switch to another database.
The other looser is the open source community that will (over time) loose one of their building blocks and also the protection from anti-competitive regulators if open source products doesn’t enjoy the same protection as closed source products. If a new product would eventually “rise to fill the void”, companies will have a harder time to trust is it can also be bought and killed. There is however no guarantees that such a product will ever exists again as the unique circumstances that made MySQL possible may not appear again.
In the end, the simple truth is that if you don’t do anything, you are helping Oracle. By giving your opinion at http://helpmysql.org you can at least get your voice heard!
Monty, first off thanks for taking the time to reply. You should’ve just sent an email, it would have garnered the same level of attention.
Let me also reiterate that I share your love for MySQL, as well as your concerns about MySQL’s future. Though I see it as a net-negative business decision, Oracle has every term-sheet-based reason not to let MySQL continue as an OSS project.
That being said, I stand by my position that you did, in fact, have a choice, you simply made it far in advance of the sale to Sun. Bringing in outside investors was tantamount to the surrender of your power of final say. Getting into bed with venture capital puts a company squarely on the road towards one of two outcomes: a sale or an IPO. In either case, you lose the reigns.
I understand you worked to ensure that MySQL would go to a good home, but surely at some point you had to acknowledge the reality that the company could go wherever the hell those in the driver seat wanted. My first company isn’t even off the ground yet and I found three separate advisors who warned me of this reality.
But while I can appreciate that we’re discussing your past business decisions with 20/20 hindsight, I have a very hard time swallowing your argument that a suitable open source replacement won’t come along, should MySQL’s doomed fate come to pass. Yes, switching databases would be a major pain, but to suggest that we won’t ever see another open source alternative because “the unique circumstances that made MySQL possible may not appear again” seems ludicrous, especially coming from someone so deeply entrenched in the OSS community.
The formula hasn’t changed: offer open source version to maximize market penetration, make money on additional services, like premium support, partnerships, and licensing. My experience with the Zen Cart project bears this reality out: the project makes money by providing out-of-box support for all PayPal payment methods. What stars’ alignment do you see at work in MySQL’s success? I submit that such a position sells short all the time and effort of you and your team.
Even your own actions betray your words. After all, what is the MariaDB project if not “MySQL redux,” without the outside investors?
However, despite our disagreement, I can totally and emphatically agree with you on one key point: that open source software could lose protection under anti-competitive regulation. Depending on the nature of their decision, it could have widespread consequences for all sorts of open source-based businesses. And it’s on that basis that I’ve already signed the http://helpmysql.org petition.