I don't think I explained my point of view on that particularly well. What I meant was MySQL is backed by a single commercial interest (and as of this year, that commercial interest is a Big Corp). Somehow, someone has to make some money pretty directly off MySQL, and that someone has a lot of influence on the direction of MySQL. Much more than, say, IBM could ever have over the Linux kernel, despite the fact that they put money into it.
To me, that's a conflict of interest. Plus it creates uncertainty about what might happen in the future. Sun's already talking about closing the source of some of the tools (I doubt they will ever close MySQL completely, but still...). If there's a choice, I'll usually go for the OSS project that is not primarily controlled by a company. e.g. Perl over PHP, Debian over Red Hat.
I think you overestimate how much Sun controls MySQL. They have not made anything closed-source, and the stories that they were considering it a couple months ago were quite misleading. I think you're overestimating this in general actually. PHP is certainly not controlled by a company, and Fedora is a very open project.
Would it be any better if the top contributors to Postgres left the project than if the MySQL ones did? Unless you have some data showing that one project has a much more centralized group of contributors, I don't think you can draw any conclusions based on who makes money from it.
Unless you have some data showing that one project has a much more centralized group of contributors, I don't think you can draw any conclusions based on who makes money from it.
I'm not talking about empirical evidence that conclusively proves something. I'm just talking about a personal preference. I prefer to use OSS projects that are set up in that way, and it's worked for me so far. If something else works for you, then great.