Okay, so you don't buy that MySQL couldn't survive as a strictly open-source project without the ability to sell proprietary/closed-source licenses (like they currently can). I wouldn't argue that.

How do you respond to this scenario?:

Oracle owns MySQL. Oracle shapes MySQL's development very slowly over the course of a decade or two, cementing it in its current niche (and, thus, it will never be a threat to Oracle's ridiculously fat profit margins).

In this scenario, do you think there will sufficient impetus to fork and grow an open-source-only MySQL project (with a different brand and basically a new community starting from scratch)?

Surely you can agree that the desire for such will be radically reduced, possibly to the point that it's not feasible?

Even if it is feasible, surely you can agree that it would almost certainly slow down MySQL's developments in this direction by years? (For many years MySQL has been growing more and more feature-rich, arguable to expand the roles that it can play. I would say pretty much all of their current momentum is in this direction.)

"MySql is a low-end [DB]" ... "[some] companies replacing their Oracle database with a MySql one, but those are very few and far between"

And you can be pretty bloody sure that if Oracle owns MySQL, that'll never change. :)

You're a moron.

"People should have the freedom to hold on to their money if they wish if they feel it is to their benefit to do so. Especially the poor who are usually not the ones who invest in stocks for one reason or another and the only way to mitigate the erosion of their wealth is to spend that cash on something and the poor are the most in need of developing a safety net of cash that they can use to drag themselves up in the world."

The poor don't invest in stocks because THEY DON'T HAVE THE MONEY TO.

They don't lose money (directly) from inflation, because they HAVE NO MONEY TO LOSE.

They (must) spend it on the necessities - food, clothing, shelter. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF POOR.

You're welcome.