That blows my mind. I encountered two Oracle audits within 7ish years in the industry, and heard about others. If anyone goes to MIS school, there should probably be a contracts day somewhere in that curriculum, and "don't use Oracle" should be the first bullet point.
Maybe in the 80s and 90s without the internet it might be more hush-hush. But this is now two decades of aggressive Oracle audits. Two decades is a LONG TIME for companies to get off of a vendor.
And now there's Postgres with, what, 30 years of engineering into it? Honestly if your database scale exceeds Postgres, you should be on Cassandra or other specialized database that will actually scale to really large sizes, not some weirdo hyper-hardware Oracle setup.
Virtually every large org has a very involved process for vendor selection. HOW DOES ORACLE SURVIVE THESE? How does any IT organization not have a standing policy of "generally don't use oracle unless you absolutely have to"?