Actually, I thought the article winds up making the opposite argument from what it thinks it is making. To be clear, the blame for this situation for this land

Actually, I thought the article winds up making the opposite argument from what it thinks it is making. To be clear, the blame for this situation for this lands on Sun. It isn't Oracle's fault that Sun withered away to the point where it needed to be acquired. The article seems to show that Oracle is doing just fine by ignoring Sun's open source assets. This line in the article "They also need to start to think more seriously about how Oracle can contribute to Sun's open source products, and not just the other way around." needs substantiation. If I were Larry Ellison, I see no reason to do that right now. Especially when Sun's contributions to open source didn't do them (Sun) a world of good in pure financial terms. The other interesting statement is this one "The problem is that Oracle is naturally trying to optimise its acquisition of Sun for its own shareholders, but seems to have forgotten that there are other stakeholders too". As a public company, Oracle has a fiduciary obligation to protect its shareholders interests. It has no such obligation towards the open source world at large.