3 ms·

The difference, and he spells it out quite clearly, is that Oracle already has a database and that it wants to sell its database and that MySQL interferes with

• davidw 17y ago
  And thus creating a monopoly in the database market? No. There is plenty of competition, both open source and proprietary.
  • mtts 17y ago
    Of course there is. But Oracle may feel it makes no sense to compete against itself.
    • davidw 17y ago
      Their money, their call is how I see it, as long as they aren't removing the only competitor from the market.
  • deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
• asjo 17y ago
  But as soon as you've sold something, isn't it up to the new owner to decide what to do with whatever it is you've sold?
  • nostrademons 17y ago
    Legally, yeah. But many startup founders consider carefully what the new owner is going to do with their creation before selling it. That's the responsible thing to do, because there're users who don't have a legal say in the transaction, but will often be impacted quite severely if the new owner buys a product to kill it. Look at the outcry when the Etherpads sold their company to Google so it could be killed, for example.
    • asjo 17y ago
      Selling to Sun would not seem to me to be a move directed by such careful consideration. Hindsight is 20-20, of course, but still - I don't remember thinking of it as a good move for the future of MySQL at the time.