I keep seeing comments like

(That's his signature)

Sun bought MySQL AB, which is a company that provides enterprise support for companies who use mySQL. Aside from the fact that Sun has a history of supporting and contributing to the open source community, this is quite different from buying mySQL (the source code).

This is similar to Red Hat and Novell providing enterprise support for companies who use linux. It strengthens the community by encouraging corporations to adopt linux.

It is similar to Zmanda providing enterprise support for Amanda. Zmanda also provides enterprise support for backing up mySQL through their Zmanda Recovery Manager for mySQL.

So, in each of these cases there is an open source product whose source code you can download and use for free. They each also have binary distributions that you can download for free. What they contribute is enterprise support contracts and additional software components (enterprise editions) so that corporations will make the move to adopt this software. They also have programmers who contribute code back to the source. So they strengthen the community in multiple ways.

Having Sun buy MySQL AB escalates the scale of the enterprise support. There are companies who would go with Oracle just because of the big name Fortune company behind it and the support contracts. Now mySQL not only has the enterprise support but a Fortune company behind it. That has to have an effect increasing the breadth and pace of adoption of mySQL in the corporate world.

So, enough of "the sky is falling" and "Sun has acquired mySQL".

Wholehearted support - I see Mahmoud has edited his sig though.
I had him on about it earlier.

You are right - the relation between the GNU GPL and "commercial" still needs reiteration.
http://www.interesting-people.org/ar.../msg00055.html
https://list.scms.waikato.ac.nz/pipe...ly/007598.html
http://www.oreillynet.com/cs/user/view/cs_msg/5626
... discussions.

Recently:
http://www.crn.com/software/193600331
... article claims that GPL prevents commercial forks of Sun Java

http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquir...throws-fud-gpl
... McAffee and the GPL - possible copyright breach?

http://www.virtualbox.org/wiki/News
VirtualBox 1.5.0 is available both as Open Source under the GPL as well as under a commercial license (Sept 3 2007)
... note that GPL is, here, considered non-commercial. Anyway: isn't dual gpl/proprietary licensing disallowed?

The really cool thing about GPL, and probably a certain software house is especially upset about it, is that it prevents a direct buyout from removing the code from general use. GNU/Linux cannot be bought

If you are the copyright holder, no.
You are free to release your software with as many licenses as you like. Those who pick the software under a specific license are bound to it though.

Ah yes... that's what I get for not double-checking.