FAQ: Remedies

What's wrong with Oracle's public promises related to MySQL as announced on December 14, 2009?

Oracle called those statements "commitments" but they can't be considered remedies and were not filed formally with the European Commission. They are just empty promises as Michael "Monty" Widenius, MySQL's creator and founder, explained in this blog posting. In an immediate reaction on Oracle's announcement, Florian Mueller, who cooperates with Monty in opposing Oracle's acquisition of MySQL, had already commented on Oracle's promises in the media.

If Oracle were to divest MySQL, who would the potential buyer(s) be?

Given MySQL's ubiquity, technological strength, revenue base and proven ability to "bootstrap" (finance growth with its own cash flow as opposed to depending on outside investments), there can be no doubt that there would be strong interest from different parties in acquiring these assets. Considering that open source business models and the related marketing efforts (which always has to take into account the specific characteristics of the open source community) are in some ways different from the traditional software industry, and furthermore considering synergy effects with other open source technologies, a major commercial open source vendor would presumably be particularly well-equipped to take MySQL to the next level in technical and commercial terms.

Could a non-profit foundation backed by several major IT companies be a suitable buyer?

We saw a survey in which the idea of MySQL being sold to a non-profit organization was viewed favorably by many respondents and in October we saw a press release by the FSFE conveying this message.

Should MySQL be sold, there would be no shortage of bidders. Therefore, it would not be necessary to create a new foundation or consortium only in order to find a bidder.

Depending on who would back such a foundation and what its resources and intentions are, such a bidder could also be considered a suitable buyer, but it would have to have a commercial subsidiary that would grant commercial licenses to customers and generally continue to promote and sell the product proactively.

Why wouldn't it be enough for Oracle to promise a certain amount of development expenditures, even if it's higher than what Sun spent on MySQL development?

A proper comparison has to include all of the R&D investment made: not only what Sun spends but also what storage engine vendors and other enhancers and contributors invest. Third parties will only invest if they have a real commercial opportunity.

If Oracle promises to spend any given amount of money, there's a large number of ways in which it can fulfil that promise without actually developing MySQL in the way that best helps the market.