Is Oracle's latest spin actually right?

This time he said something which sounded a lot like the truth. (Make sure your pop-up blocker is airtight before clicking the link.)

The following quote is from Haaretz:

"Open source is not something to be feared. Open source is something to be explained. Open source wins not because it's open and not because it's free. Open source wins only when it's better."

In the enterprise space where Oracle lives there is some justification to this. Apache's success against Microsoft's IIS server was based on its quality and Microsoft's recent gains may be explained the same way.

But there's a hole in the argument. Are mySQL, PostgreSQL and Ingres really better than Oracle, because they are continuing to gain share. Or are their gains down, at least in part, to the fact that they're open and free?

Ellison noted that the purchase price of software is just 10% of the total cost of ownership, suggesting that up-front savings are miniscule. But if the savings are miniscule, why are so many companies and projects switching?

Could it be that the ability to see software, change software or hire someone to change it does have economic value?

I think it does. I'm not worth $21 billion but I think it does.