Scott Marlowe <smarlowe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> It would be great if Oracle paid to fork MySQL to a pure GPL product,
> producing a new connection lib under LGPL, and hosting the whole thing
> as a version of MySQL that ONLY uses innodb.
> By forcing it to use one and only one table handler, they would then
> focus development effort on SQL compliance, proper operation, and adding
> features that work with innodb, like full text searching. Since the
> basic database would retain a good amount of interoperability with the
> old MySQL, this new database could easily take away a fair share of
> their market. Then, Oracle could sell support contracts, not licenses,
> and back them up with their rather large corporate infrastructure.
That's a really interesting angle --- not only does Oracle get rid of
what they may or may not see as serious competition, but they get a
chance to make some money at the same time. I'm not convinced about the
"only one table handler" part of your story. Oracle certainly has the
resources to fix up multiple handlers if they wish, and they wouldn't
want to leave a loophole that MySQL AB could use to claim that their
version is better. The only one I'd see them dropping, in this
scenario, is BDB (unless they could buy out Sleepycat too, which is
perhaps not out of the question).
I've been trying to figure out what it is that Oracle gets out of this,
assuming that they don't see MySQL as a serious threat to their core
business. The most they can do is force MySQL AB to waste a year or so
reimplementing something equivalent to InnoDB; which would hurt them but
it's hardly likely to kill them. But with your scenario Oracle might
actually make money out of the deal, which makes it make some sense.
regards, tom lane
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx so that your
message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
