* http://www.h-online.com/open/news/item/Red-Hat-says-no-MariaDB-MySQL-decision-made-1891543.html

* http://www.zdnet.com/red-hat-enterprise-linux-7-software-stack-still-under-wraps-7000016906/

* http://linux.slashdot.org/story/13/06/14/1225257/red-hat-ditches-mysql-switches-to-mariadb

As always, more articles have been written on this:

* http://www.itwire.com/opinion-and-analysis/open-sauce/60299-ditching-mysql-red-hat-shows-its-prowess-in-spin

* http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/06/15/red_hat_to_ditch_mysql_for_mariadb_in_rhel_7/

* http://www.techweekeurope.co.uk/news/red-hat-to-abandon-mysql-in-favour-of-mariadb-119155

* http://www.itwire.com/business-it-news/open-source/60292-red-hat-ditches-mysql-switches-to-mariadb (quotes from Arjen Lentz, and a lengthy comment stream too)

Its just like Fedora 19 from the information that I have: http://www.bytebot.net/blog/archives/2013/04/30/testing-fedora-19

I think its hard not to have MySQL at the moment.

Source: https://plus.google.com/110443614427234590648/posts/AzMMubEhxJf

If a product is developed in that way, it could be GPL and be sold to clients. That is, anyone who wants the product buys it, and gets the source with it under GPL license. Most clients have their own core business and will have zero interest in re-publishing that code. They just have the code available in case anything happens.

So from this perspective, I don’t see the point of having a business source license at all, as it amounts to the same as using GPL in the way described above.

However, open source publishing has issues, whereas open source development has proven advantages including better code quality and higher contributor rate. With business source it’s even worse, with the source only becoming available to a larger group after some time. This inevitably limits the number of people with expertise. That may be regarded as an asset (clients have a limited set of service providers to choose from) but for those who need expertise internally, it’s highly problematic.

Also remember how when MySQL Enterprise Edition received new features and bugfixes not yet present in MySQL Community Edition, those clients also had the joy of being the first limited set of users encountering new bugs. Had the development model been open, the bugs would have been spotted or encountered by the community much earlier and probably never even existed in a release. It was bad for quality.

So, the problem with the development model at Oracle is merely an extension of the open source publishing employed at MySQL AB. Its problems are not mitigated by going even more closed or being differently closed. The problem is that the closed aspects hinder bug finding, code quality, and even release speed (as the QA cycle is slower, if you do want to deliver good quality with fewer testers and no external feedback).

Thus, it is my conclusion that the solution is to be more open, and always employ the full open source development model. This produces the best code quality and serious users respect that. Crying that people won’t pay is silly, the trick is to figure out what people actually need.
Annual support contracts (aka insurance policies) are quite outdated. People demand value for money, what do they actually get out of it?

My company sells services that people actually need in a way that makes sense to them, and my clients are even happy to pay a bit on top directly for the MariaDB Foundation. This is how Open Query funds its sponsorship (and future membership), it’s directly paid for by its clients. We all have a stake in MariaDB’s future, and that’s not a hard sell at all.

Dual licensing possibly made sense for some time, but it definitely doesn’t now (not just because we’re all on the receiving end of its problems rather than being the owners).
I think business source has a similar issue. It tries to mitigate the negative effects of part of the development and business model by introducing more restrictions, thereby hindering all kinds of things that a healthy product ecosystem requires.
Once you have established that overview, I cannot imagine why anyone would think this could be a good idea.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m sure it can make money – but that doesn’t mean anything for the long-term quality of the product, the ecosystem, or even the company that makes the profit. I conclude it is not a good idea.