Comments on: What about Woman’s Hour? Free speech, free markets and the future of MySQL http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/21/what-about-womans-hour-free-speech-free-markets-and-the-future-of-mysql/ A blog for the enterprise open source community Sat, 11 Feb 2012 16:45:54 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: 451 CAOS Theory » Everything you always wanted to know about MySQL but were afraid to ask http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/21/what-about-womans-hour-free-speech-free-markets-and-the-future-of-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-485517 451 CAOS Theory » Everything you always wanted to know about MySQL but were afraid to ask Mon, 26 Oct 2009 12:32:34 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/?p=1259#comment-485517 [...] 21: 451 CAOS Theory - What about Woman’s Hour? Free speech, free markets and the future of MySQL “The only possible argument in favour of the EC blocking Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL is [...] [...] 21: 451 CAOS Theory – What about Woman’s Hour? Free speech, free markets and the future of MySQL “The only possible argument in favour of the EC blocking Oracle’s acquisition of MySQL is [...]

]]> By: Oracle, MySQL and the EU: The Q&A | Tech-monkey.info Blogs http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/21/what-about-womans-hour-free-speech-free-markets-and-the-future-of-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-484015 Oracle, MySQL and the EU: The Q&A | Tech-monkey.info Blogs Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:55:37 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/?p=1259#comment-484015 [...] Groklaw is concerned about the implications for the GPL. Matthew Aslett compares the transaction to free speech. And so on: there’s doubtless lots more commentary I’m leaving [...] [...] Groklaw is concerned about the implications for the GPL. Matthew Aslett compares the transaction to free speech. And so on: there’s doubtless lots more commentary I’m leaving [...]

]]> By: tecosystems » Oracle, MySQL and the EU: The Q&A http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/21/what-about-womans-hour-free-speech-free-markets-and-the-future-of-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-483991 tecosystems » Oracle, MySQL and the EU: The Q&A Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:11:00 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/?p=1259#comment-483991 [...] Groklaw is concerned about the implications for the GPL. Matthew Aslett compares the transaction to free speech. And so on: there’s doubtless lots more commentary I’m leaving [...] [...] Groklaw is concerned about the implications for the GPL. Matthew Aslett compares the transaction to free speech. And so on: there’s doubtless lots more commentary I’m leaving [...]

]]> By: Mike http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/2009/10/21/what-about-womans-hour-free-speech-free-markets-and-the-future-of-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-483195 Mike Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:38:32 +0000 http://blogs.the451group.com/opensource/?p=1259#comment-483195 Clearly it is an issue of different perspectives. Both groups, EC and Stallman/Widenius ("S/W") are looking out for what they perceive to be the best interests of the consumers. Clearly the EC can and should only insert itself where there is a threat to competition resulting from acquisition of competing products that could create a monopoly. One could argue this applies with Oracle/MySQL. It should have nothing to do with whether Oracle is open source friendly, but whether it reduces competition and therefore harms consumers. S/W view their role as protecting open source freedoms, thereby protecting the consumer who benefits from these freedoms. To project this perspective upon the EC is inconsistent with the role of the EC. If a company X were known for buying open source and converting it, over time, to closed source through closed extensions, this would be odious to S/W. However, as long as company X was not viewed as raising anti-trust issues (e.g. owning a market leading competitor to the software, or something they could contractually link to the software, like Microsoft has been accused of doing) it would not be subject to EC review. So, yes the EC is only chartered to insert themselves where there is a potentially monopolistic outcome, meaning those other than IBM (who owns market-leading databases) would receive a pass for MySQL. S/W might not find IBM objectionable, based on their support for open source, but I believe that the EC would. Clearly it is an issue of different perspectives. Both groups, EC and Stallman/Widenius (“S/W”) are looking out for what they perceive to be the best interests of the consumers. Clearly the EC can and should only insert itself where there is a threat to competition resulting from acquisition of competing products that could create a monopoly. One could argue this applies with Oracle/MySQL. It should have nothing to do with whether Oracle is open source friendly, but whether it reduces competition and therefore harms consumers.

S/W view their role as protecting open source freedoms, thereby protecting the consumer who benefits from these freedoms. To project this perspective upon the EC is inconsistent with the role of the EC. If a company X were known for buying open source and converting it, over time, to closed source through closed extensions, this would be odious to S/W. However, as long as company X was not viewed as raising anti-trust issues (e.g. owning a market leading competitor to the software, or something they could contractually link to the software, like Microsoft has been accused of doing) it would not be subject to EC review. So, yes the EC is only chartered to insert themselves where there is a potentially monopolistic outcome, meaning those other than IBM (who owns market-leading databases) would receive a pass for MySQL. S/W might not find IBM objectionable, based on their support for open source, but I believe that the EC would.

]]>