Comments on: Oracle lifts the cloud hanging over MySQL storage engine vendors http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/ Choices in data management and analysis Thu, 09 Feb 2012 09:22:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.3 By: Notes on the evolution of OLTP database management systems | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-164714 Notes on the evolution of OLTP database management systems | DBMS2 -- DataBase Management System Services Tue, 06 Apr 2010 04:24:16 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-164714 [...] Oracle’s promise of MySQL good behavior has an expiration date. [...] [...] Oracle’s promise of MySQL good behavior has an expiration date. [...]

]]> By: Mike http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-153072 Mike Wed, 16 Dec 2009 21:23:38 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-153072 I have to agree with Fred. If Oracle chooses to charge for bundling storage engines, no problem. If they choose to enforce copyright (after 5 years) against the use of a public API, that seems like it would be more of a weapon that could be used in an anti-competitive manner. Drop the 5-year carve-out and let's get this thing done for the good of all involved. And Mark, I am not "demanding" anything from Oracle. The EC is making the demands on behalf of users who would benefit from a more competitive marketplace. I am simply providing insights about what I believe will achieve the EC's objectives, satisfy Oracle and get this done. The relative weighting of the cost/benefit of their demands of Oracle is something that the EC and Oracle control, we are merely watching from the sidelines. Maybe we should discuss this over beers ;-) I have to agree with Fred. If Oracle chooses to charge for bundling storage engines, no problem. If they choose to enforce copyright (after 5 years) against the use of a public API, that seems like it would be more of a weapon that could be used in an anti-competitive manner. Drop the 5-year carve-out and let’s get this thing done for the good of all involved.

And Mark, I am not “demanding” anything from Oracle. The EC is making the demands on behalf of users who would benefit from a more competitive marketplace. I am simply providing insights about what I believe will achieve the EC’s objectives, satisfy Oracle and get this done. The relative weighting of the cost/benefit of their demands of Oracle is something that the EC and Oracle control, we are merely watching from the sidelines.

Maybe we should discuss this over beers ;-)

]]> By: Fred Holahan http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-153071 Fred Holahan Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:48:13 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-153071 I have no stake in this either way, but will offer a view. I don’t believe the EC should be trying to expand the rights of storage engine vendors, per se. The EC should, on the other hand, want to ensure that the MySQL ecosystem has the ability (and motivation) to drive engine-level innovation for the benefit of MySQL consumers, mitigating the risk that Oracle may not have similar intentions. If MySQL storage engine vendors benefit from this assurance, so be it. Oracle understands and agrees; that’s why they’ve proposed GPL non-assertion. It’s a good idea, but it’s essentially emasculated by Oracle’s proposed five year carve-out. Drop the carve-out and the MySQL community will have achieved a significant hedge against future bad behaviors. I have no stake in this either way, but will offer a view. I don’t believe the EC should be trying to expand the rights of storage engine vendors, per se. The EC should, on the other hand, want to ensure that the MySQL ecosystem has the ability (and motivation) to drive engine-level innovation for the benefit of MySQL consumers, mitigating the risk that Oracle may not have similar intentions. If MySQL storage engine vendors benefit from this assurance, so be it. Oracle understands and agrees; that’s why they’ve proposed GPL non-assertion. It’s a good idea, but it’s essentially emasculated by Oracle’s proposed five year carve-out. Drop the carve-out and the MySQL community will have achieved a significant hedge against future bad behaviors.

]]> By: Mark Callaghan http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152964 Mark Callaghan Wed, 16 Dec 2009 02:03:16 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152964 Mike, Storage engine vendors never had from Sun what they are demanding from Oracle. OEM deals were not easy to negotiate -- note there is not standard storage engine OEM deal on the web at mysql.com. They were not for an unlimited duration. They all required money going back to Sun for support and licensing. If I am putting anything on you, it is based on your comments earlier in this thread. You express concern that Oracle's commitments are not enough for storage engine vendors. I agree with you on that. But those terms appear to be better than storage engine vendors have received in the past. Regardless of what you think about this, the EC appears to be concerned about the treatment of application vendors and storage engine vendors who need an OEM deal. While I think there might be a lot of consumers for apps bundled with MySQL I don't think there are many for OEM storage engines. Therefore, I think any concern for the welfare of storage engine vendors by the EC is misplaced given the damage done to Sun and MySQL during this prolonged period of uncertainty. The public suffers much more from that. The server market is beginning to recover for many server vendors. It probably is not for Sun. Mike,

Storage engine vendors never had from Sun what they are demanding from Oracle. OEM deals were not easy to negotiate — note there is not standard storage engine OEM deal on the web at mysql.com. They were not for an unlimited duration. They all required money going back to Sun for support and licensing.

If I am putting anything on you, it is based on your comments earlier in this thread. You express concern that Oracle’s commitments are not enough for storage engine vendors. I agree with you on that. But those terms appear to be better than storage engine vendors have received in the past.

Regardless of what you think about this, the EC appears to be concerned about the treatment of application vendors and storage engine vendors who need an OEM deal. While I think there might be a lot of consumers for apps bundled with MySQL I don’t think there are many for OEM storage engines.

Therefore, I think any concern for the welfare of storage engine vendors by the EC is misplaced given the damage done to Sun and MySQL during this prolonged period of uncertainty. The public suffers much more from that. The server market is beginning to recover for many server vendors. It probably is not for Sun.

]]> By: Mike http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152927 Mike Tue, 15 Dec 2009 22:28:13 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152927 Mark, The EC isn't basing their decision on my company or any other specific company. They are looking into their crystal ball to foresee future problems. If it was all about my company, we're a gnat on the elephant's ass. I'm quite balanced on the whole thing. A deal needs to get done to help solidify the future of the products and the people at Sun. I'm not a player in this game, don't put it on me. Oracle made the offer and they are playing their hand against the EC. I have no problem with Sun taking a cut for the value they provide. If we bundled with MySQL, it would be reasonable to pay them a royalty that is standard across the industry, without favoritism. FRAND or Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory is a licensing model espoused by the EC for example. Mark, The EC isn’t basing their decision on my company or any other specific company. They are looking into their crystal ball to foresee future problems. If it was all about my company, we’re a gnat on the elephant’s ass. I’m quite balanced on the whole thing. A deal needs to get done to help solidify the future of the products and the people at Sun. I’m not a player in this game, don’t put it on me. Oracle made the offer and they are playing their hand against the EC.

I have no problem with Sun taking a cut for the value they provide. If we bundled with MySQL, it would be reasonable to pay them a royalty that is standard across the industry, without favoritism. FRAND or Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory is a licensing model espoused by the EC for example.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152920 Curt Monash Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:50:56 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152920 Mark, Classic anti-trust. If MySQL's main DBMS business is MySQL, trust them to do what's best for MySQL. If MySQL is owned by somebody else, namely Oracle, who has a different DBMS focus, don't necessarily trust them to do what's best for MySQL. That's where the anti-trust analysis starts. When I was more confident Oracle couldn't strangle the storage engine ecosystem, I thought there shouldn't be an antitrust issue. Now that I'm not so sure, I'd like to see that one point taken care of before giving an antitrust OK. And by the way -- if you're implying that this whole problem is so small it shouldn't have taken many months to resolve, I agree completely. Mark,

Classic anti-trust. If MySQL’s main DBMS business is MySQL, trust them to do what’s best for MySQL. If MySQL is owned by somebody else, namely Oracle, who has a different DBMS focus, don’t necessarily trust them to do what’s best for MySQL. That’s where the anti-trust analysis starts.

When I was more confident Oracle couldn’t strangle the storage engine ecosystem, I thought there shouldn’t be an antitrust issue. Now that I’m not so sure, I’d like to see that one point taken care of before giving an antitrust OK.

And by the way — if you’re implying that this whole problem is so small it shouldn’t have taken many months to resolve, I agree completely.

]]> By: Mark Callaghan http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152918 Mark Callaghan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:28:58 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152918 Mike, I am suggesting that if the public isn't running your code then delaying this merger on your behalf isn't in the interest of the public. Delaying this has a huge cost for the business of Sun and some cost for MySQL. Have you suggested that you should not have to abide by the GPL while selling a closed-source product on top of MySQL? They own copyright on the code. If the OEM storage engine business is valuable, why should not they make a profit on that. Hopefully, some of that profit would go back into MySQL development. Mike,

I am suggesting that if the public isn’t running your code then delaying this merger on your behalf isn’t in the interest of the public. Delaying this has a huge cost for the business of Sun and some cost for MySQL.

Have you suggested that you should not have to abide by the GPL while selling a closed-source product on top of MySQL? They own copyright on the code. If the OEM storage engine business is valuable, why should not they make a profit on that. Hopefully, some of that profit would go back into MySQL development.

]]> By: Curt Monash http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152910 Curt Monash Tue, 15 Dec 2009 20:23:34 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152910 Mike, That's how negotiations work. For MOST of the items on the list, a limited-time commitment is absolutely appropriate. The copyright paragraph is an exception. So now we're pointing out Oracle needs to give ground there. That relieves pressure to give ground on other matters. :) CAM Mike,

That’s how negotiations work. For MOST of the items on the list, a limited-time commitment is absolutely appropriate. The copyright paragraph is an exception. So now we’re pointing out Oracle needs to give ground there. That relieves pressure to give ground on other matters. :)

CAM

]]> By: Mike http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152891 Mike Tue, 15 Dec 2009 18:23:39 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152891 The 5-year moratorium is a red herring. Why doesn't Oracle just say fine, we release all copyright claims on the storage engine eternally? Is it in the public's interest for Oracle to pick and choose which closed source storage engines they like? Mark, are you suggesting that only open source storage engines are in the public interest? Because past anti-trust reviews, especially outside of the software industry, have always addressed for profit competitors that were harmed. I am a big free market guy. Oracle paid for this right, they get the spoils. But if it is determined that this is in the public's best interest, it should be done correctly. The 5-year moratorium is a red herring. Why doesn’t Oracle just say fine, we release all copyright claims on the storage engine eternally? Is it in the public’s interest for Oracle to pick and choose which closed source storage engines they like?

Mark, are you suggesting that only open source storage engines are in the public interest? Because past anti-trust reviews, especially outside of the software industry, have always addressed for profit competitors that were harmed.

I am a big free market guy. Oracle paid for this right, they get the spoils. But if it is determined that this is in the public’s best interest, it should be done correctly.

]]> By: Mark Callaghan http://www.dbms2.com/2009/12/14/oracle-mysql-storage-engine/#comment-152857 Mark Callaghan Tue, 15 Dec 2009 16:11:51 +0000 http://www.dbms2.com/?p=1328#comment-152857 That is the point. The EC is doing this to protect the public interest. What part of the MySQL-using public benefits from these storage engines? InnoDB, MyISAM, Heap and NDB are used in production. PBXT might join that group. None of these are at risk with respect to the need for an OEM license. Grouping InfoBright and InnoDB allows you to cast doubt on both when the OEM issue is limited to InfoBright and InfiniDB. I wish InfoBright and InfiniDB the best because they have good technology and have published some of their code. That is the point. The EC is doing this to protect the public interest. What part of the MySQL-using public benefits from these storage engines?

InnoDB, MyISAM, Heap and NDB are used in production. PBXT might join that group. None of these are at risk with respect to the need for an OEM license.

Grouping InfoBright and InnoDB allows you to cast doubt on both when the OEM issue is limited to InfoBright and InfiniDB.

I wish InfoBright and InfiniDB the best because they have good technology and have published some of their code.

]]>