Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Despite having issued it's formal objections, the European Commission continues to investigate the matter, and according to Oracle officials, it's costing Sun some $100 million per month. Given that Sun is a sizable employer, concern has grown that layoffs and possibly worse may be on the horizon, leading US officials to step in. Following the lead of high-profile senators Orrin Hatch and John Kerry, some fifty-nine members of the Untied States Senate — more than half — joined in sending a letter to the European Commission, asking that it complete its investigation ASAP. Citing the threat to American jobs, Senator Kerry told reporters that the senators "felt compelled to ask for a speedy resolution" to the seven-month saga."
Posted Nov 27, 2009 21:26 UTC (Fri)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link] (19 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 0:32 UTC (Sat)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 15:07 UTC (Sat)
by marcH (subscriber, #57642)
[Link] (2 responses)
Maybe because you do not read the parent article?
There is a problem IF these senators are actually just disguised Oracle representatives, as politicians often are.
Posted Nov 28, 2009 18:00 UTC (Sat)
by Los__D (guest, #15263)
[Link]
Posted Nov 30, 2009 17:27 UTC (Mon)
by iabervon (subscriber, #722)
[Link]
Also, since the pressure is in the form of a statement, and the statement just says "hurry up", it's entirely reasonable to think that the intent is just to get an answer soon, so that Sun can decide whether it would be better to try a deal with a company that doesn't make databases (or to sell MySQL to such a company); this helps Sun and Sun employees but not Oracle.
Posted Nov 28, 2009 0:33 UTC (Sat)
by Ed_L. (guest, #24287)
[Link] (14 responses)
Be careful what you pray for.
Posted Nov 28, 2009 0:37 UTC (Sat)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link] (13 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 6:10 UTC (Sat)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link] (12 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 15:55 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (11 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 16:42 UTC (Sat)
by niner (subscriber, #26151)
[Link] (7 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 17:19 UTC (Sat)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (5 responses)
Posted Nov 28, 2009 20:25 UTC (Sat)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link] (4 responses)
Posted Nov 29, 2009 18:25 UTC (Sun)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link] (3 responses)
Indeed. Although it's tempting to think that "only the shareholders should get to decide because it's their company", the whole point in having governments and regulators is to make sure that society doesn't lose out when transactions like this have an impact on a market. Sun's management should know all about the issues of building communities around Free Software (or failing to do so), and the ownership of the code is always a factor because the licensing builds on this. However, the principal impact of the ownership changes (and any licensing changes) is on those who wish to make Sun/Oracle-sanctioned proprietary derivatives of MySQL. If someone forks the GPL-licensed version of MySQL, they can just get on with it. The FSF's objection did touch upon the issue of GPLv3 relicensing, which would be a positive thing (in my opinion) since it merely strengthens the provisions from GPLv2, but the people forking MySQL do get to choose their own licence combinations (GPLv2-compatible plus anything else that might ultimately be appropriate) and don't have to assign their copyrights to Oracle. The result of this would be that Oracle wouldn't be able to use their work in a proprietary product without a deal being struck, and some movement on both sides could be possible. This is all separate from whether the regulators should stipulate anything before this merger is completed, however. I don't really care about proprietary vendors having to renegotiate licensing terms with Oracle, but if the regulators think that this disrupts business in their jurisdiction, it's obviously their choice to do something about the matter. Companies doing business in a place must generally comply with whatever the laws and regulations of that place happen to say, like it or not.
Posted Nov 30, 2009 19:38 UTC (Mon)
by drag (guest, #31333)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Dec 1, 2009 14:21 UTC (Tue)
by pboddie (guest, #50784)
[Link]
I said nothing about the kind of government or the level of government, but just that governments and regulators are there to, well, govern and regulate. The idea, in principle if not in practice, is to stop the rich people deciding what happens all the time. I'm not arguing against the merger. Maybe you should ask Monty and friends the same questions. Well, the EU can be quite the predatory force, and so it's necessary to always be vigilant where it is concerned, especially given the democratic deficit and the tendency for corporate lobbying, being wined and dined by people with expensive yachts, and so on. In this case, I doubt the EU is protecting me from anything, but it's the job of the regulator to investigate whether there is a need to protect participants in a market. Which is why I didn't argue that there was any particular threat to Free Software developers. The only negative aspect of any potentially hostile change in ownership is that a better licence will not likely be chosen, and that could have an impact in the long term, but relicensing is a problematic area for many projects, anyway. The best way to undermine the arguably selfish motives of those criticising the deal would be for Oracle to bump the licensing to GPLv3. That way, the founders of MySQL, whose argument would seem to be grounded in them wanting to make proprietary or permissively-licensed derivatives of the software, would be more obviously isolated and exposed. It would also take the wind out of the regulators' sails.
Posted Dec 4, 2009 2:17 UTC (Fri)
by jschrod (subscriber, #1646)
[Link]
While this may be the major US-American view, we, in Europe, see this differently. Maybe you should, at some point in your life, understand that the world has not the USA's world views at its center, even though it may be very hard to understand and accept. Or, maybe not, no need to consider. Since your country's economy seems going down the drain anyhow with your military spending madness, we'll get out the wine&cheese (which hobo ever thought that popcorn is something to celebrate with?) and wait.
Posted Nov 30, 2009 21:27 UTC (Mon)
by sbergman27 (guest, #10767)
[Link]
Posted Nov 28, 2009 20:25 UTC (Sat)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link] (2 responses)
Competition policy is one of the few areas where the EU actually works and
pretty much the only one where it's arguably the world leader.
Posted Nov 28, 2009 20:40 UTC (Sat)
by bjacob (guest, #58566)
[Link]
Posted Dec 7, 2009 20:41 UTC (Mon)
by clugstj (subscriber, #4020)
[Link]
How is holding up a decision on the merger helping competition? Being the "world leader" on government regulation is not something I'd be proud of.
Posted Nov 27, 2009 22:05 UTC (Fri)
by petegn (guest, #847)
[Link] (3 responses)
Posted Nov 27, 2009 22:10 UTC (Fri)
by nix (subscriber, #2304)
[Link]
Oh, also, the City of London is pretty much totally dependent on Oracle
Posted Nov 28, 2009 6:14 UTC (Sat)
by rahvin (guest, #16953)
[Link]
Posted Nov 30, 2009 11:35 UTC (Mon)
by sylvain.nahas (guest, #61022)
[Link]
True, our current prosperity we built it ourself, and we had and have to fight economically, politically, and symbolically against the US government - and the USA of today is no more so moraly straight as the one of yore. As a french I was durably vexed by the US-government-backed stupid bashing of my nation theses last years. But if I am, if we are, all of us here from this side of the ocean, able to stand today, this is _because_ they helped us when is was needed - once again: they weren't indifferent.
So you too shouldn't.
Posted Nov 30, 2009 10:40 UTC (Mon)
by sylware (guest, #35259)
[Link] (2 responses)
Posted Nov 30, 2009 18:35 UTC (Mon)
by rriggs (guest, #11598)
[Link]
Posted Nov 30, 2009 23:48 UTC (Mon)
by ttelford (guest, #44176)
[Link]
Oracle already owns BerkeleyDB and InnoDB - which are both used in MySQL. To me, it seems
More to the point - there seems to be a feeling of entitlement being expressed - that MySQL
I have to ask... why? If nobody is willing to develop MySQL (paid or free), why should MySQL
There is ample competition in the open source world. Apache Derby, HSQL, PostgreSQL,
Free software projects die. It happens. If MySQL can't get enough people who care about it to
Posted Nov 30, 2009 22:10 UTC (Mon)
by ttelford (guest, #44176)
[Link] (1 responses)
Oracle isn't a foe of Open Source - they are funding the development of btrfs, ocfs2, eclipse,
There's little reason to believe Oracle would pull anything with MySQL, because there are already
So other than Oracle having made a lot of money with a proprietary DB, they've done a lot to
1.) If the merger doesn't go ahead, Sun dies. MySQL goes with it. So now there's nobody being
2.) MySQL gets spun off, and Oracle & Sun Merge. MySQL didn't make it on its own the first time
I really don't see MySQL having a future on its own a second time around - it's chances are far
Posted Dec 3, 2009 20:44 UTC (Thu)
by davecb (subscriber, #1574)
[Link]
ttelford writes: I don't get the resistance to the merger;...
The objectors turn out to have included Microsoft and SAP: the resistance is due to them wanting Sun and Oracle to fail. MtSQL is just a red herring. Our favorite monopolist, Microsoft, doesn't care if MySQL die. They' prefer it did, and stop competing with MS Sql. Besides which, they hate Sun, and Scott in particular.
SAP has a similar motivation re Oracle.
This has been discussed in some detail on Groklaw.
--dave
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
What -- or rather whose -- end would be served splitting MySQL off from Sun? A standalone MySQL is still a tempting acquisition target, targeted by someone perhaps less interested in maintaining a competitive DB environment than is Oracle.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Personally I don't see how it's anybody else's business what Sun and Oracle
decide to do. Screw them both, they are just going to drag each other down.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Frankly I don't think any of the USA government or EU's government business
at all.
Even if it was its not even remotely a anti-trust situation. If Oracle does
not buy Sun then Sun is not going to be around later anyways. Sun
Microsystems is a _DYING_ corporation. Its been mismanaged into the ground.
Either you let Oracle buy Sun and you end up with Oracle/Sun.. or you just
end up with Oracle and no Sun. Pick your choice.
At 100 million dollars a day all the EU folks are doing is just being huge
f-ing dicks. No respect, no concept at all. If they did care, if they did
have respect for those companies and those employees they would of made up
their mind already one way or another. The regulators are a bunch of self-
righteous assholes, really. I am sure that they are sitting their trying to
figure out how to manipulate Oracle into giving cheaper licenses to their
member states and favored EU-based corporations without being blatant about
it.
Its bad enough that American companies have to deal with the self-serving
and hypocritical machinations of the United State's Republican and
(especially) Democratic political parties now they have to deal with same
exact sort of jerks that have successfully marketed, financed and
manipulated their
way into power with the European States.
-----------------------------------------
As far as MySQL goes... who gives a shit? Its a open source database
product licensed under the GPL and thus is completely immune from Oracle
fingering it. Worst case is that you'd have to use a different name for
Debian's package. Like "IceSQL" or some silly BS.
Sure it may affect people that depend on it for proprietary
software. but that is OK.. this is normal for those sorts of folks and
should teach them a lesson. I've seen dozens of examples of people
depending on third party proprietary software only to have the rug pulled
out from under them one way or another. This is why people should stop
falling for
those sorts of traps.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
quickly got drowned in loads of swear words and rants...
The whole situation is just supremely irritating. I'll try to be nicer so
that I don't offend your ears.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
1. It's nobody else's business what Oracle and Sun decides to do besides
Oracle, Sun, and their investors.
2. Sun is dying and is going away one way or another. Either you let Oracle
buy them or Sun will continue to melt down for another decade or so and
eventually sell off everything to a dozen companies. Then you just have
Oracle by itself with a bunch of Sun's copyrights and software patents
floating from lawyer group to lawyer group.
3. MySQL, in at least as much as Free software folks is immune to
Oracle's manipulation. That's one of the fundamental advantages to "Free
software", right? : Independence from Vendors. Most of the important people
involved in MySQL never worked for Oracle or Sun.
4. People who depend on third party proprietary software (like commercial
MySQL license) should be used to being screwed over by now. I've seen this
before,
personally, with a company that used Fox Pro database software and related
items when Microsoft bought that company out.
(Paraphrasing here)
ISV to Financial Company: We are no longer able to provide support for the
database software you based your entire IT infrastructure on.
Financial Company to ISV: WTF? We pay you lots and lots of money, you no
longer want to stay rich supporting our crappy software?
ISV to Financial Company: We are no longer allowed to support your
software. However we will give you a 20,000 dollar discount if you decide
to switch to Microsoft MSSQL and Windows 2000 in the next 4 months. Have a
nice day.
Financial Company: *cry*
ISV + Microsoft: * counts money while giggling quietly.
So this thing happens over and over again. If people have not figured why
they should work in supporting and using free software yet they are not
going to and deserve what Oracle does to them.
"It's nobody else's business what Oracle and Sun decides to do besides Oracle, Sun, and their investors."Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Well, that's a pure libertarian credo; the rest of the world thinks that markets need some level of regulation; how much regulation depends on everyone's opinions, but I don't know a single country that doesn't have laws to control mergers.
"MySQL, in at least as much as Free software folks is immune to Oracle's manipulation. That's one of the fundamental advantages to "Free software", right?"
But there's much more to Free Software than a license, there's the team of developers behind the code. Having mought MySql, Oracle can disrupt that team in many creative ways. The GPL only allows people to continue using/developing MySQL under the same GPL license. So for example, Oracle can still kill MySql's double licensing strategy, removing its financial independence. If a team wanted to fork it, the copyrights would still belong to Oracle so they would have to ask Oracle for permission for any licensing issue; not to mention the effect on the developers team's morale, etc. Again, disclaimer: I don't know specifics about MySql, but what I'm saying here is general common sense.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Well, that's a pure libertarian credo; the rest of the world thinks that markets need some level of regulation; how much regulation depends on everyone's opinions, but I don't know a single country that doesn't have laws to control mergers.
But there's much more to Free Software than a license, there's the team of developers behind the code.
If a team wanted to fork it, the copyrights would still belong to Oracle so they would have to ask Oracle for permission for any licensing issue; not to mention the effect on the developers team's morale, etc.
Indeed. Although it's tempting to think that "only the shareholders
should
get to decide because it's their company", the whole point in having
governments and regulators is to make sure that society doesn't lose out
when transactions like this have an impact on a market.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
The whole point of a Federal government should be to protect against
foreign aggressors and to deal with interstate trade regulations. Most
everything else should happen on a much more local level since Democracy
does not scale. Local politics are something that individuals can control
and have influence over... trying to do that for entire continents is just
delusional.
If it was not for our governments propping up, creating contrived legal
environments to protect the profitability of large corporations, then
things like ATT's monopoly, or Microsoft's hedgemony, or the old Railroad
barons from the last century would not of been possible at all. In
almost all these sorts of cases it's a government created problem with
people
crying about
corporation the ones being evil. It's the corporations working with the
corrupt government to further each other's interests over the interests of
the country.
In _this_specific_case_ (which is what _I_ was talking about above) it's
nobody's business because it's a highly competitive market. There are at
least 4-5 other major companies that offer server hardware and/or
enterprise database software and such things. Sun Microsystems is exiting
the market one way or another and preventing Oracle from buying them is no
way going to create a more competitive or consumer friendly environment.
What is Oracle going to do to hurt you and limit your freedom? Send shock
troops into your house to stomp your kittens or something?
What is the EU protecting you from?
But there's much more to Free Software than a license, there's the
team of developers behind the code.
And who are the major contributors to MySQL? Who were the ones that created
it? Do _they_all_ work for Sun? No.. I don't think so. Sun Microsystems has
no more of a monopoly over open source database developers then I do. If
Oracle goes out of their way to hurt MySQL and there is no GPL'd fork to
continue development of that software then it is the failure of the open
source development model and not some government regulation committee's
fault.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
The whole point of a Federal government should be to protect against foreign aggressors and to deal with interstate trade regulations. Most everything else should happen on a much more local level since Democracy does not scale.
What is Oracle going to do to hurt you and limit your freedom? Send shock troops into your house to stomp your kittens or something?
What is the EU protecting you from?
If Oracle goes out of their way to hurt MySQL and there is no GPL'd fork to continue development of that software then it is the failure of the open source development model and not some government regulation committee's fault.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
> foreign aggressors and to deal with interstate trade regulations.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
chill recognize that words are just words. If one or two expletives, included for emphasis,
causes you to reel, and lose track of what someone else is saying, then perhaps you are
spending more time in church than is good for you.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
The regulators are a bunch of self-righteous assholes, really. I am sure
that they are sitting their trying to figure out how to manipulate Oracle
into giving cheaper licenses to their member states and favored EU-based
corporations without being blatant about it.
Hardly! The member states largely hate the EU competition authorities,
because they have a habit of slapping their wrists and saying no, you
cannot provide this huge benefit to your pet 'national champion'
companies.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
and still pretty dependent on Sun. (Mind you, these days that might be a
reason to burn them with fire. ;P )
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
US Regulators
the US regulators have a better understanding of the GPL than their counterparts.
*must* survive its current state, and that somebody *must* pay for developers, as if MySQL were
some god-given right.
continue to exist? What makes MySQL so special?
Postgres Plus, drizzle, H2, OpenLink, Firebird, MonetDB, LucidDB... oh, yeah, and MySQL. So
what makes MySQL deserve special and preferential treatment?
donate resources (time, talent, or funds), then there really isn't a MySQL community after all --
just a bunch freeloaders who use MySQL.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)
other free software databases, and frankly, I don't see MySQL surviving on its own. The only way
it can survive in the short-term is under the wing of a profitable parent. Most already (IBM,
Microsoft, SAP, Oracle, etc.) have their own DB's and would have the same monopoly concerns
with the EU.
BerkeleyDB, InnoDB, various Linux Kernel improvements... Oracle already owns InnoBase, which
makes InnoDB, already one of the backbones of MySQL Similarlly, Oracle owns the copyrights to
BerkeleyDB.
MySQL forks out there - the fork will just replace the original, much like Xorg vs XFree86. Oracle
already owns tech incorporated into MySQL, and haven't tried anything to harm MySQL.
help free and open source software, and contintue to invest in it. So why all the suspicion and
FUD? What has Oracle done to harm or hinder free software? More to the point - they've had the
power to do so (or at least try) yet haven't. That should say something.
paid to do MySQL development. How is this a win? There would be a lot of fire & flames for the
MySQL team (and IP) to get through for the project/product to survive. (Having been through a
couple of tech acquisitions, I know from experience it's quite likely that nothing would survive.)
around; after three rounds of venture capital, they ran out of cash. The investment market
tanked, and investors weren't in the mood for more risk taking (a number of companies folded
for the same reason in early 2008, with many large investment firms following shortly after that.)
worse today than when MySQL AB was founded 15 years ago. Any competent investor would
look at the history of three rounds of venture capital, zero profits, and pass it up in this
economy.
Senators Nudge EU On Sun (Linux Journal)