What Sun's acquisition of MySQL means for the software industry
Sun Microsystems has acquired MySQL for $1 billion in cash and options. That's now old news. The implications of the deal, however, have yet to be felt, but this deal means several key things for open source.
In no particular order:
- Sun is directly competing with Red Hat to become the heart of the open-source business community. I've written before that either Red Hat with its operating system or MySQL with its database could become the center of an alternative ecosystem to the Proprietary Bloc (Oracle, Microsoft, and IBM). With Sun at the helm of MySQL, MySQL just became a lot more credible in this role as it now has cash to match its ambition.
- Sun will be a top suitor for open-source companies. I've written on this before, too, but now that Sun has acquired MySQL it will be easier for other open-source companies to follow suit. If Sun does a better job with this acquisition than Red Hat did with JBoss, Sun may well become the preferred destination for open-source companies that are amenable to acquisition (and everyone is at the right price).
- Just as ex-JBossers have gone on to start/join other open-source companies, MySQL should flower into a few spin-off companies, as well. Hopefully (for Sun), this won't happen immediately. But over the medium turn it will be excellent to have MySQL's open-source savvy, battle-hardened team back in the market forming new open-source ventures. JBoss is working for us at LoopFuse, Red Hat, Appcelerator, XAware, and others (including one that is very stealth but which is also hugely interesting given one key person involved). This is good for the industry. We need this experience and the cash plowed back into commercial open source.
- It demonstrates that open source is worth an excellent multiple. No, we're not in Web 2.0 funny money land, but that's a good thing. The multiples/valuations we've seen for XenSource, MySQL, JBoss, and Zimbra demonstrate healthy demand and healthy respect for open source.
- There are really only three big open-source vendors. Sun, Red Hat, and...Yahoo. I could maybe throw Google in that mix, as well, but Google doesn't yet seem to be taking the public approach to aggressively releasing and acquiring open source as part of its business methodology--at least, not to the same degree as Yahoo. These are likely to be the big aggregators of open-source companies.
- Oracle may be in for a fight as it attempts to consolidate the industry around its proprietary platform. Sun (and Red Hat) is offering an open-source alternative to proprietary lock-in on a massive scale. With Sun's reputation for quality, it may well be able to help grow the mission-critical image of software like MySQL such that the open-source ecosystem will even more effectively compete against the Proprietary Bloc.
Matt Asay brings a decade of in-the-trenches open-source business and legal experience to The Open Road, with an emphasis on emerging open-source business strategies and opportunities. Matt is vice president of business development at Alfresco, a company that develops open-source software for content management. He is a member of the CNET Blog Network and is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure. You can follow Matt on Twitter @mjasay.


Bruce Lowry from Novell here. Yes, interesting times, as always, in the software world! Just one comment.... I'm a bit confused by your short list of big open source vendors. Seems like apples and oranges, with a couple of companies that are actually commercial entities who sell open source solutions and a couple of others who either use it or contribute to projects. I know you continue to disagree with elements of our strategic direction, but to not consider Novell one of the top open source vendors in the market just doesn't track with what's actually happening. We're got a large and growing Linux business. Thanks.
What is Novell's strategic direction?
VMware that doesn't support other Linux's ? Not much foresight there.
I was under the impression that IBM was a player in this area. However, I'm not very informed. Could you help me understand why you count Sun, Red hat and Yahoo, but not IBM?
Thanks
In other words, this wasn't meant to be a slight on you, but rather a semantic distinction.
As for Michael too, I don't consider IBM an open-source player, either. It uses open source in a limited strategic way, but doesn't have the same bet-the-company commitment on open source that I think Sun, Red Hat, and increasingly Yahoo! have.
Novell leads or contributes to many projects, related standards and services. Some of these are: open courseware, OIN, openSUSE, Apache, Aperi, AppArmor, Banshee / Helix, Better Desktop, blade.org, eclipse, Evolution, Gnome, Higgins, ifolder, mono, OpenOffice.org, OpenWBEM, OMC, Open Cluster Framework, OpenLDAP, OpenSLP, OpenSSL, openswan, rsync, tomcat, xen, yast, OASIS, W3C, Java Community Process.
Covering operating systems, systems management, identity, security, user experience, collaboartion, training and interoperability, these projects are representative of the reach of open source in Novell's business.
You've tossed around a lot of terms in this thread. Some seem to be the same but with different meanings in different sentences. Do you have consistent definitions for what you are calling:
Open-source company
Open-source ecosystem player
Big open-source ecosystem player (by what measure is one big?)
Project sponsor
Open-source business community
Open-source venture (presumably this is an open-source company that hasn't achieved some business measure yet but just checking)
It's hard to talk about slights vs semantic distinctions when the words in use lack common definition. Even using the word ecosystem raises questions about the whole thing since, semantically speaking, an ecosystem player means nothing specific. If you're in the ecosystem you'll either survive or perish but that which would compare one "player" to another isn't a measure of how open they are or how much of a player they are -- it is whether another player can consume or destroy them. Perhaps that is why GNU suggests avoiding the word altogether: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html#Ecosystem
In closing, if the measure of how big an open-source player a company is comes from how many of their products or lines of business involve open-source or how much of their revenue is derived from open-source, I'm baffled as to how Sun with open-Solaris, OpenOffice.org (and their insistence on continuing the not-as-open StarOffice), Java, openVZ and now MySQL is a bigger player than Novell with the linux that Sun distributes, several very significant projects included with Linux, OpenOffice.org contributions second only to Sun, open-source identity, security and systems management use and contributions. Please tell us your definitions and measures. A "club" that is about open-source shouldn't have secret membership rules.
Linux distributor
...and returning to the theme of acquisitions, I've long wondered who would buy Sun and when.... You could argue that they have now made themselves sufficiently relevant enough for them to be an attractive takeover target. Their share price is low and there are several obvious candidates who would love to have control of Java and their open source assets - either to leverage, control or kill them.
-
by the68empirer
January 18, 2008 9:18 AM PST
- what I don't understand is why sun hasn't a clear and homogeneous strategy
-
Like this
Reply to this comment
-
(12 Comments)why it was sponsoring the "world's best opensource database--->postgresql" and now it acquires mysql?
http://www.sun.com/software/products/postgresql/index.jsp
Do you think they will try to get the 2 both and build a big opensource database...?
anyway, good choice the opensource
but they haven't done too much till today....solaris need many opensource porting before being attractive for desktop users
http://the68empire.blogspot.com