Tue

Oct 11
2005

Tim O'Reilly

Tim O'Reilly

Your Money or Your MySQL

Andy Oram recently sent around to the O'Reilly editors' list some thoughts on the recent acquisition of InnoDB, MySQL's enterprise component, by Oracle. They are a thought provoking read, even in the version below, which is sanitized of some insider gossip that Andy felt would be better not repeated off O'Reilly's lists. While I've long maintained that licenses are a red herring when it comes to understanding the true importance of open source, there are definitely business implications to the license chosen. As Andy speculates, Oracle's purchase may well be an attempt to use the same dual licensing strategy that MySQL has employed so successfully against them. Here's Andy:

Your money or your MySQL

On Friday, October 7, Oracle announced that it bought a key technology behind MySQL: InnoDB. Here is some background, analysis, and rampant speculation.

Background

MySQL is a dual-licensed database engine. The company makes its money by selling licenses to companies that want to incorporate MySQL into commercial products. MySQL is open-source for everybody else, hence its popularity.

MySQL used to have a single type of database that lacked such features as transactions and row-level locking, features considered so fundamental to databases that for a long time MySQL was called a toy. Several years ago the company took a big leap in offering these features--but rather than develop them in-house, they licensed outside talent.

(The history of MySQL AB's deals with other companies is interesting: its first attempt to implement transactions took software from SleepyCat, but it fell pretty much into disuse after InnoDB came along. Now MySQL AB is using talent from SAP to add a lot of SQL compliance. In short, a few brilliant coders can't always do it all themselves; they can use help from experienced outsiders--although apparently InnoDB was developed originally by one brilliant coder, Heikki Tuuri. By now MySQL AB is huge, though, so they can probably move more development in-house--and that will save them now.)

InnoDB is what they ended up with, and it is the center of the "enterprise" features they are now leveraging to become a major vendor. It was dual-licensed to MySQL on the same terms that MySQL was licensed to its users. That InnoDB is the intellectual property of another company is an Achilles heal for MySQL AB, and Paris's arrow has now struck.

The buy-out

There is no indication what the buy-out offers either Oracle or InnoDB. For the developer of InnoDB, Heikki Tuuri, the draw was probably financial. But strangely enough, the next day Tuuri was back on IRC helping random users with questions. So he still has class!

Oracle and InnoDB claim they'll continue developing the product and offering it to MySQL AB on the same terms. MySQL declares "business as usual" and various other platitudes. But it's really hard to believe that the tiny InnoDB company with their lightweight storage engine had any technology or skill to offer Oracle.

And look at the timing! Just as MySQL 5.0 becomes official. The moment for FUD couldn't be better.

The response

MySQL's current contract with InnoDB extends another year and a half. They may well find an accommodation and keep on track. (There are many enhancements being planned for InnoDB.) But as I said before, MySQL AB has grown a lot and developed some rich and powerful friends. It probably has the resources in place for replacing InnoDB, should it feel that's necessary.

Impact

I think the adoption of MySQL by new, large enterprises--what MySQL AB is currently gunning for--will be slightly slowed down by the Oracle news, but will continue anyway.

This incident seems to combine elements of two putative crises in the Linux world: the SCO lawsuits and the BitKeeper incident.

SCO, like Oracle, used a lightning strike that was both heavy-handed and underhanded to try to leverage its power. I think Oracle has more of a chance of succeeding (it has a stronger position in the industry and knows what it's doing) but ultimately the open-source community will prevail. Paris killed Achilles, remember, but Troy still lost.

BitKeeper was a proprietary version control package that Linux developers used to maintain kernel code. (MySQL uses it too.) As with MySQL and InnoDB, Linux's reliance on the makers of BitKeeper was a potential risk. When the owners of BitKeeper announced they were withdrawing the free version, scads of commentators announced this was a crisis for Linux. Yet Linus Torvalds and others quickly developed a replacement that the free software community now thinks may be a breakthrough for version control. Once again, the community overcomes the blows of the proprietary world.


tags:   | comments: 10   | Sphere It
submit:

 
Previous  |  Next

0 TrackBacks

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://blogs.oreilly.com/cgi-bin/mt/mt-t.cgi/4345

Comments: 10

  Karsten Schneider [10.11.05 11:01 AM]

I agree with your post, but I thought there was another angle people need to look at that's not directly related to Oracle. MySQL AB is in total control.

They can change the license to MySQL as they see fit (as they have in the past, when they switched the client library from the LGPL to the GPL). Think about the impact on GPL type customers if MySQL switches to the GPL 3, which might close the web loophole. All of a sudden countless web application providers are looking at Open Sourcing their products, switching to another database when the version of MySQL they're using runs out of steam, or buying a license.

The point is, there are really two kinds of Open Source products: The ones like Linux, with too many cooks in the pot to change the license; and the ones like MySQL, InnoDB, etc., which are at the mercy of a single company or individual. The latter is only provisionally Open Source.

  Poala Lubet [10.11.05 02:43 PM]

The significance of Oracle�s acquisition goes deeper than what may appear.

Oracle just threw MySQL�s customers into a huge pile of uncertainty by buying the transaction engine that implements MySQL 5.0 advanced database features, which was announced only weeks ago in late September. What does MySQL have left without InnoBase? Their Classic edition is what, with a flat-file DB engine that certainly doesn�t support triggers or stored procedures or transactional capabilities.

These customers are also left to ponder what the community support around MySQL is as now clearly appears that all most critical development and everyday support is strictly contained within a few individuals. MySQL is more about business than community. And they make such a business blunder as to rely so heavily on external product that is now on the hands of Oracle. Now, what happens when Oracle decides to put a little squeeze on that license cost or heavily influence the evolution and support of that product? MySQL customers and prospects will have to reevaluate their database investments and analyze short and long term impact on their businesses.

People just need to recognize Oracle�s InnoBase acquisition for what it is, and MySQL customers need to have their wits about them over the next several months as this deal plays out. �Paola Lubet

  Poala Lubet [10.11.05 02:44 PM]

The significance of Oracle�s acquisition goes deeper than what may appear.

Oracle just threw MySQL�s customers into a huge pile of uncertainty by buying the transaction engine that implements MySQL 5.0 advanced database features, which was announced only weeks ago in late September. What does MySQL have left without InnoBase? Their Classic edition is what, with a flat-file DB engine that certainly doesn�t support triggers or stored procedures or transactional capabilities.

These customers are also left to ponder what the community support around MySQL is as now clearly appears that all most critical development and everyday support is strictly contained within a few individuals. MySQL is more about business than community. And they make such a business blunder as to rely so heavily on external product that is now on the hands of Oracle. Now, what happens when Oracle decides to put a little squeeze on that license cost or heavily influence the evolution and support of that product? MySQL customers and prospects will have to reevaluate their database investments and analyze short and long term impact on their businesses.

People just need to recognize Oracle�s InnoBase acquisition for what it is, and MySQL customers need to have their wits about them over the next several months as this deal plays out. �Paola Lubet

  Poala Lubet [10.11.05 02:45 PM]

The significance of Oracle�s acquisition goes deeper than what may appear.

Oracle just threw MySQL�s customers into a huge pile of uncertainty by buying the transaction engine that implements MySQL 5.0 advanced database features, which was announced only weeks ago in late September. What does MySQL have left without InnoBase? Their Classic edition is what, with a flat-file DB engine that certainly doesn�t support triggers or stored procedures or transactional capabilities.

These customers are also left to ponder what the community support around MySQL is as now clearly appears that all most critical development and everyday support is strictly contained within a few individuals. MySQL is more about business than community. And they make such a business blunder as to rely so heavily on external product that is now on the hands of Oracle. Now, what happens when Oracle decides to put a little squeeze on that license cost or heavily influence the evolution and support of that product? MySQL customers and prospects will have to reevaluate their database investments and analyze short and long term impact on their businesses.

People just need to recognize Oracle�s InnoBase acquisition for what it is, and MySQL customers need to have their wits about them over the next several months as this deal plays out. �Paola Lubet

  jim [10.11.05 03:51 PM]

the implementation of triggers and stored procedures in mysql 5.0 is independent of the innodb storage engine, and there are at least two other transactional storage engines available for mysql today. who knows how many additional transactional storage engines will be available in a year?

  Glen Pepicelli [10.11.05 05:21 PM]

The designers of MySQL were clever when they wrote the database in two layers. The work they did with triggers, views and stored procedures is all on the top layer, so they shouldn't have to rewrite that. innodb was the only storage layer with transactions that was free as in "free beer".

Perhaps we will no only get a replacement for innodb but an open source one that could eventually be more advanced.

I think its far from a death blow.

Glen.

  Louis-Philippe Huberdeau [10.12.05 04:33 AM]

InnoDB is a GPL product. MySQL can simply "fork" it and continue the maintenance. It's not an easy task, but there are no legal issues to it. It might cause problems with their dual licencing model, but they can probably figure out a solution.

I read an interview short after the announce and MySQL seemed to have no problem with it.

This can't be compared to BitKeeper where the licence was not GPL. And SCO... well, no comments.

  Matthew Montgomery [10.13.05 06:59 PM]

Even if Oracle does try putting the screws to MySQL by increasing the licence costs for InnoDB, or discontinuing support for it altogether, MySQL is still not in that bad of shape. Some of the features on the drawing board for the MySQL 5.1 release include row level locking and lock-less hot backup for MyISAM tables. With these features in place InnoDB may have little if any lasting advantage over MyISAM.


If we're lucky we could see a beta version of MySQL 5.1 by the time the MySQL AB and Innobase Oy negotiated contract is up. MySQL then regains (near) total control over their product. Heikki may just be seeing the writing on the wall and figured that now is the time to cash out.

  Seun Osewa [10.15.05 06:20 PM]

You forgot something else that's so important: transaction support, which MyISAM doesn't have!

Post A Comment:

 (please be patient, comments may take awhile to post)






Type the characters you see in the picture above.

RECENT COMMENTS