[SpiralLab]

Either it's: intentional, or they just don't give a damn.

Considering the sources of most of their revenues, I'd say #2 is most likely. Companies that have been in Enterprise that long, making hand-over-fist money from mediocre products, acquired IP, and vendor lock-in often have a "quaint rag-tag" view of the FOSS development community.

I tend to think it's a myopic viewpoint, but then again we are a tiny indie shop, and they are multi-billion dollar company.

[X-Istence]

If they don't give a damn, why were they fighting to keep it on their infrastructure?

If they had succeeded what would they have gained?

If they hadn't given a damn then they would have let Hudson choose where to host their software and mailing lists and all that fun jazz.

If it was intentional they could have foregone getting a trademark on the name Hudson, and they could have just asked the Hudson development team to move off their infrastructure.

Oracle's actions in this case seem to be completely random. It is almost as if there was no direction or thought behind what they did.

There seems to be no pattern or reasoning about what Oracle is thinking or attempting to do...

[j_baker]

It's a classic case of not invented here syndrome mixed with incompetence when it comes to open source software. They wanted it on their servers because they were their servers. No more, no less.

[regularfry]

The pattern is very simple. Control leads to power which leads to coerced profits. The tighter the control, the greater the power, and the greater the profits. That's their formula, and it seems like the only one they know.