Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Businesses Technology

MySQL and SCO Join Forces 516

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the black-and-white-meets-gray dept.
matchboy writes "CNET is reporting that MySQL and SCO have signed a partnership to work on "joint certification, marketing, sales, training and business development work for a version of the database for SCO's new OpenServer 6 version of Unix." Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

MySQL and SCO Join Forces

Comments Filter:
  • It's simple (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:40PM (#13477791)
    They kidnapped their dolphin Sekila and left a note that said "You know what's great with tuna? Dolphin."
  • Because... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pwnage (856708) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:41PM (#13477795)
    Dollars always trumps the Constitution. Haven't you been paying attention to recent politics?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:54PM (#13478273)
      For some time now, I have been saying that MySQL is a lock-in scheme. It became obvious when MySQL switched from the LGPL license to the dual GPL + proprietary licenses. This does nothing to promote Open Source, rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

      Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt.

      Note that MySQL and Trolltech are both partly owned by Index Ventures. They also own a piece of Skype. See http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200505241 72943589 [groklaw.net]

      Index Ventures bought into Trolltech at about the same time that SCO ended its partial ownership of Trolltech. Prior to that, SCO Chairman Ralph Yarro, one of the engineers of SCO's attack on Linux, also sat on Trolltech's Board of Directors.

      Any Linux supporter who isn't nervous about this rats nest, and who doesn't wonder about possible Microsoft involvement, given their connection with SCO, is being naive.

      What it comes down to is this:

      Even those who trust MySQL and Trolltech must realize that their GPL + proprietary licensing schemes lead to future lock-in, and should be avoided for that reason alone.

      If you are a MySQL user, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at alternatives, such as PostgreSQL.

      And if you are a KDE developer, and you care about the future of Open Source, you should be looking at porting KDE to other platforms, so you are not dependent on just Qt. Besides, Qt's licensing scheme is limiting your success. You can start by simply layering the KDE code (similar to what Apple did with Konqeror in order to create Safari), which is a good thing to do anyway.

      And everyone should be watching out for long term hooks. Remember the early nineties, when the PC was an open platform, that used open, documented hardware interface standards. But then Microsoft introduced Windows, and "free" developer tools, which they gradually used to turn the open PC platform into one which would only run with Windows middleware. All the open PC hardware interfaces were turned into secret interfaces, requiring custom drivers that only worked with Windows.

      Microsoft was able to take over the open PC platform because of what is called "network lock-in." This occurs due to the fact that Windows is middleware, which sits in between the PC platform, and the applications that run on top of it. The applications need Windows in order to talk to the PC hardware, and the PC hardware needs Windows in order to talk to the applications -- nobody can move away from Windows without losing access to everything else, hence the network lock-in.

      Just like Windows, MySQL and Qt are middleware, with the same potential for network lock-in. Proprietary (non-GPL'd) applications that run on MySQL and Qt depend on them for access to the OS (Linux), and, because they use the proprietary licenses, they don't have the Open Source protection of being able to fork MySQL and Qt.

      Think carefully about the future, people. Don't let the astroturfers, and slick salespeople lull you into a false sense of security. Pay attention to how your software is licensed. Pay attention to any dependencies your software has on other software. It's the start of the nineties all over again, and you currently have an open platform, with all the commodity benefits that will bring. You don't want to be foolish and short-sighted, and lose it again.
      • by EzInKy (115248) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @05:17PM (#13479232)

        For some time now, I have been saying that MySQL is a lock-in scheme. It became obvious when MySQL switched from the LGPL license to the dual GPL + proprietary licenses. This does nothing to promote Open Source, rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.

        Another product that uses the GPL + proprietary lock-in licensing scheme is Qt, by Trolltech. They also use their GPL'd edition as a loss-leader, in order to promote sales of the proprietary edition of Qt.


        Let me see if I get this right. If you use these libraries to develop free software you pay no money. If you use them develop proprietory software you pay money. In other words, you make money they make money, if you make no money they make no money. So what exactly is the problem again?
        • by maxwell demon (590494) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @05:57PM (#13479468) Journal
          Let me see if I get this right. If you use these libraries to develop free software you pay no money. If you use them develop proprietory software you pay money. In other words, you make money they make money, if you make no money they make no money. So what exactly is the problem again?

          You got it wrong. If you develop GPLed Free Software, you pay no money. If you develop proprietary software (no matter if it is Freeware [i.e. free as in beer] or if you sell it) you have to pay. But if you want to develop Free/Open Source software under a GPL-incompatible OSS license, you're out of luck.

          Now why does it matter for Qt/KDE, but not for, say, GIMP? Well, simple: KDE is infrastructure. It's in a similar position as the C library or the gcc runtime library (which even the FSF makes sure can be used for non-GPLed software alike without any problems). Every program which is intended to fit seamlessly into the KDE system basically has to link Qt. And thus you effectively lose the freedom of chosing your license for your code. The situation is different for GIMP: There's generally no need for a graphics program to directly interact with GIMP. Unless you explicitly want to change or add to GIMP, you need not be interested in the GIMP license. Normal code just isn't affected. But if KDE should become the standard desktop, you'll very much be forced to use Qt for your GUI programs (or your program will just not integrate nicely). That's why the standards here are different than from ordinary code.

          I don't know how much the MySQL licensing affects other code. Can you write code using MySQL without being bound by the GPL (except by buying a proprietary license, of course)? If not, how standard is the interface (i.e. can you easily write code which would without change work e.g. on both MySQL and PostgreSQL)? If the answers to both questions are "No", then it's effectively a vendor lock-in as well, because again, a database is critical infrastructure for certain applications.
    • Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Beautyon (214567)
      dollars

      Indeed.

      I wonder how many of the people here railing against this detail-less deal downloaded and used MYSQL AND gave them a single dollar to say 'Thanks'....lets see:

      mysql> select count(*) FROM users WHERE donators like %complainers%';

      +----------+
      | count(*) |
      +----------+
      | 0 |
      +----------+

      Thought so!
  • Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GreyWolf3000 (468618) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:42PM (#13477801) Journal

    Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?"

    ...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?

    I dunno...just a guess.

    • doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)

      by sum.zero (807087) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:46PM (#13477840)
      they risk a large-scale negative reaction in order to attempt a push into a small, dying market niche.

      as i have pointed out on groklaw, the companies running dbms on their unixware/openserver boxes will likely stick with their dbms when they move to another *nix.

      companies hate switching dbms because it can get very messy very fast.

      sum.zero
      • Re:doubtful (Score:5, Informative)

        by trewornan (608722) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:56PM (#13477909)
        SCO have a history of taking legal actions against those that enter into contracts with them. In fact just about everybody they sue has some sort of contract with them. MySQL ab are taking a real chance with this and it could cost them hugely.
        • Well, you know the old saying: You lie down with the dogs, you wake up with a mailbox full of litigation.

          I like MySQL, both as a product and as a company. They've generally done the right things, thus far. I just hope they're being careful, and I hope they understand just how silly this looks to us all. :)
        • by Anonymous Coward
          SCO is going to be driven into bankruptcy shortly after Sept.12 when Judge Kimbal puts all their liquid assets into a trust to be available to pay the license fees they owe Novell.

          SCO is in no position to start any new legal actions.

          On the other hand, IBM or Novell will end up owning the assets of SCO but they probably won't hold enough of a grudge to pursue MySQL for anything.
    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)

      by ralinx (305484) <ralinx@gmail.com> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:49PM (#13477865)
      ...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?


      yea, just think of all that potential revenue coming from those millions of SCO customers ;)
    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Solder Fumes (797270) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:52PM (#13477880)
      Because it's TheirSQL.
    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by IdleTime (561841) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:00PM (#13477937) Journal
      If the MySQL people think they are going to make money by partnering with SCO, they need a new leadership.

      The judgment behind this decision says a lot about the company and I woukld never touch its products, no matter how good they are supposed to be.

      IMHO making a partnership with SCO is a career killer.

      me: I see you were CEO of MySQL?
      CEO: yes
      me: And you were the force behind the partnering deal with SCO?
      CEO: Yes
      me: Thank you for your interest in the position, but we don't need CEO's with flawed busniess logic. Next!
      • Get real.. (Score:5, Insightful)

        by BerntB (584621) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @04:40PM (#13478934)
        If the MySQL people think they are going to make money by partnering with SCO, they need a new leadership.
        Many companies, with products that are relatively easy to port, have a strategy to exist on all software platforms. Then customers with a heterogenous machine park can run their programs everywhere.

        Those companies will automatically accept deals and help from Operating systems vendors to port their products. Even if they don't like the vendor, they have no reason to dislike the customers with a mixed server population.

        Just look at all the software sold to work with Windows. Microsoft is probably the most hated software company in the world -- and have given lots of CEOs personal reasons to hate their criminal behaviour.

    • Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Dogtanian (588974) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:25PM (#13478060) Homepage
      ...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?

      Not if Novell have anything to do with it [slashdot.org].

      (Not my comment, but I thought it was a pity to let something that insightful languish at +2 obscurity because it didn't appear near the start).
  • before they made this ill-conceived strategic decision.

    sum.zero
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:43PM (#13477819)
    1 - Load gun
    2 - Point gun at foot
    3 - Pull trigger
  • I will play the optimist and say that this may help the cause. Clearly SCO is on the ropes. MySQL way be the olive branch that allows SCO to exit all this and save a little face. MySQL get a platform with which to grow market share against other commercial databases.
  • by MarkEst1973 (769601) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:44PM (#13477824)
    You can tell a lot about a person by looking at the people (s)he associates with.

    Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?

    • by njcoder (657816) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:19PM (#13478032)
      "Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?"

      Maybe it's the open source community that needs to really look at some of the things that MySQL ab has done in the past and really think if that reputation is warranted, especially after this.

      It's one thing to like and use the product it's another to like and trust the company that is backing it. All too often people have one opinion and assume the other. This also work dislike and distrust.

  • New Playing Field (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cloudscout (104011) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:44PM (#13477825) Homepage
    I imagine nobody is happier to hear this that PostgreSQL [postgresql.org]. Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.
    • How do you pronounce PostgreSQL?
      Post-gree-seequil?
      Post-gre-seequil?
      Post-gres-quil?

      Not trying to be funny or lame here, I seriously want to know how to say the bloody thing.

    • by Afty0r (263037) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:30PM (#13478090) Homepage
      Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.
      Why is that? Is MySQL suddently going to lose features, or perform worse? Anyone who uses MySQL for what it is won't have any cause to so much as sniff at this announcement.

      It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.

      MySQL will probably be making bank with this decision, while a few hundred slashbots moan about how awful it is... in the meantime all the people who actually PAY MySQL AB money will continue to do - and the load on their download servers may lighten a little.
      • It may cause gnashing of teeth on /. but in the real business world people who base their business decisions on some kind of moral philosophy they subscribe to don't do very well - and consequently don't make particularly good customers.

        Actually there is this thing called a Mission Statement. It relates to the "Vision" thing. Most companies have both written and unwritten requirements of their corporate culture. The interesting thing is, at least to quote my Financial Strategy Prof and the textbook, th
    • by mfh (56) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:38PM (#13478136) Journal
      I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.

      I think postgreSQL should change their name to something I can store in my mind without having to "/// ||| \\\" the damn word (if you catch my subtle meaning).

      When I first looked at this story, I thought that maybe SCO was trying to buy-in some street cred, but all they have done is ruin MySQL forever, IMHO.

      You sleep with dogs, for profit, you deserve to get flees.
  • by mosel-saar-ruwer (732341) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:45PM (#13477829)

    Why would MySQL decide to work directly with a company that has deemed the GPL as unconstitutional?

    Maybe because MySQL doesn't have a dog in this fight?

    MySQL 4.1 Downloads

    The software available in MySQL Network and the MySQL Community Edition is available under the "dual licensing" model. Under this model, users may choose to use MySQL products under the free software/open source GNU General Public License (commonly known as the "GPL") or under a commercial license.

    http://dev.mysql.com/downloads/mysql/4.1.html [mysql.com]

  • Join? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mr.Progressive (812475) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:45PM (#13477836)
    SELECT * FROM mysql, sco WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces
  • right (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mr_tommy (619972) * <tgraham@@@gmail...com> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:46PM (#13477841) Journal
    Who cares? MySQL is one of the few open source companies that seems to be making the headlines doing business in the real world! Good for them!
    • FOSS companies get a lot of their business from the goodwill of their users. e.g. See: Wikipedia. A large number of SCO's endusers are part-time web developers, and amateur coders who have an OpenSource streak. Teaming up with SCO, a well-known anti-FOSS company that also happens to be MS's puppet is a statement. A statement that their users aren't the most important thing to them anymore. This isn't exactly the best way to foster goodwill.
      • Re:right (Score:3, Insightful)

        Goddamn it. Ignore the parent post. I meant to post this:

        FOSS companies get a lot of their business from the goodwill of their users. e.g. See: Wikipedia.

        A large number of MySQLAB's endusers are part-time web developers, and amateur coders who have an OpenSource streak.

        Teaming up with SCO, a well-known anti-FOSS company that also happens to be MS's puppet is a statement. A statement that their users aren't the most important thing to them anymore. This isn't exactly the best way to foster goodwill.

  • Because business arrangements typically are more profitable than releasing software under the GPL, even if you sell support agreements.
  • Up is down, down is up! The world doesn't make any sense anymore!

    Oh, wait, a business organization more interested in making money than in the 'values' it touts.... who'da thunk?

    • Up is down, down is up! The world doesn't make any sense anymore!

      Oh, wait, a business organization more interested in making money than in the 'values' it touts.... who'da thunk?

      It is precisely that MySQL is interested in making money that makes this such a strange move. SCO is going to go down. Even if they won't go banckrupt in the legal battle, there is no way they can ever recover their credibility, and the company is likely doomed, as is their product. What does MySQL stand to gain from this, exc

  • by rakslice (90330)
    Someone at SCO realized that they're actually going to be needing to sell some products at some point in the future.

    And although being able to attach little "designed for MySQL" stickers to the box won't cut through SCO's pariah status in the Linux community, they can always flip open the "Copyright Protection Racket Subscribers List" folder if they need some chumps to direct market to.
  • Blackballed (Score:2, Interesting)

    by crimoid (27373)
    Anyone remotely concerned with the GPL needs to blackball SCO out of existance.
  • by leereyno (32197) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:54PM (#13477891) Homepage Journal
    This is like Hasbro or Fisher Price teaming up with Nambla, Ebony magazine teaming up with the KKK, or Oscar Meyer teaming up with PETA.

    The people at MySQL-AB must all be suffering from a severe case of asperger's syndrome that is preventing them from understanding how everyone else will view this move.

    I'm not sure what MySQL is going to get out of this deal, but whatever it is, it isn't worth the REALLY BAD pr and public ill will that is going to be created.

    SCO is boil on the asshole of humanity. There is no excuse for doing business with them. You can't shake the devil's hand and say you're only kidding.

    Lee
  • by mr.dreadful (758768) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:55PM (#13477898)

    Wow, this has got to be a coup for SCO, considering what a pariah SCO has become with the open-source community. Even if SCO is offering buckets of cash to MySQL, this seems a really ill-advised decision by the MySQL people.

    You are judged by the company you keep.

    Frankly I'm not sure I'd hire someone with any certification offered by SCO, mainly because it shows that the person doesn't know very much about the open-source community, and why open-source is so important. Poachers like SCO must not be tolerated, and I for one will not support or endorse them in any way if I can help it.

  • April 1st?! (Score:5, Funny)

    by skaap (681715) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:55PM (#13477907) Homepage Journal
    I just checked the date! and it's not April 1st .. whats going on here?!?
  • by eno2001 (527078) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:57PM (#13477916) Homepage Journal
    I've been trying to make a decision as to which open source SQL database to go with for use with the DBMail [dbmail.org] server that I plan on installing here at home. Considering that I couldn't give a rat's ass about web applications (which DBMail is not), it seems like PostgreSQL is the answer. And with the right optimizations, it's likely to be nearly as good a performer as MySQL. Fuck SCO and anyone who choses to work with them.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      I run a cluster of DBMail IMAP servers, and I can say for a fact that after extensive benchmarking, PostgreSQL beats MySQL hands down under the load of 600 users.

      I haven't tested MySQL 5 yet, but PG 8 is almost 1.5x the speed of MySQL 4.1.
  • by mormop (415983) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:58PM (#13477922)
    Going into partnership with SCO just after Novell has applied to freeze their funds with the intention of pillaging them via the courts is not the brightest of ideas.
  • by ftsf (886792) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @01:59PM (#13477929) Homepage
    grep isnt good enough for them, they need a database to insert all the linux code into so they can search it. and they cant use it under the GPL anymore and postgres is out of the question looks like they'll have to do business with mysql
  • by Phil246 (803464) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:00PM (#13477938)
    Surely, with SCO as desperate as they are, and MySQL being their 'lifeline', they cant go all-out on the GPL as they have been in the press incase they anger the folks at MySQL?
    That being the case, is there any chance that IBM could pick up on this and run with it in their case vs SCO?
    "look here judge, SCO says the GPL is evil and unconstitutional but they're partnered with a company which uses it."
  • by nurb432 (527695)
    Why would they do this? To make money perhaps?

    MySQL is a business.. they want more mareket.. this gives them more..
    • People that use MySql will now dump it for alternatives because they dont want to touch anything that touches SCO. MySql's market share will definitely not grow from this.

      MySql didn't think this one out.
  • Oh, bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The Breeze (140484) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:10PM (#13477979) Homepage
    Is there any evidence for this other than a 1-paragraph CNET story? There's NOTHING on the mysql site about this, although there's a big thing on SCO's homepage - which, of course, doesn't seem to have any quotes from MySql.

    Come on, people, think. SCO routinely issues press releases that have no relation to reality. I wouldn't be surprised if they bought a $50 incident support call or something and referred to that as "signing an agreement."

    Someone from mysql needs to check in and let us know what's going on - so far, the only source for this "news" appears to be SCO, and that's no source at all.
  • by KajiCo (463552) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:11PM (#13477982)
    This isn't one of those buy out, or stock purchasing deals, this is just SCO buying a license to have MySQL in there POS...(oops forgot the IX, or did I?) OS for commercial use. It doesn't look like MySQL is handing over IP rights of any it's code over to SCO. They are just doing the same thing they've been doing with Novell and Dell. SCO is probably the one calling this a "partnership" to try and change it's image.

    They have a new "Open Server" coming out. It just goes to show that they are accepting defeat.

    http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html [mysql.com]

    They realise they're OS sucks, they realise Linux is kicking it's ass, and they know they can't win. They're trying to embrace their new overlords like the spineless money hungry idiots they are.

    If they attempt lawsuites such as those against Linux, MySQL can use copyright infringement against them.

    Worry when you read SCO buys 55% of MySQL AB, or MySQL sells IP to SCO.
  • by tji (74570) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:13PM (#13477998)
    I don't know any current SCO employees, but I have always assumed that there were quite a few normal techies working away at SCO, trying their best to ignore the crap coming from management. I know I have often disagreed with the choices/directions of management in companies I have worked for (though, obviously not to the level of SCO's choices). Some of those people have probably stayed to continue their work, despite the behavior at the top.

    So, what I'm rambling on about is that the OS side of the house is probably a reasonable group of people, trying to improve a Unix platform. The litigation side of the house is a bunch of worthless bastards. MySQL is working with the former.. even though it still required approval from the latter.
  • a lot of really, really good blowjobs.
    Daryl buys chapstick by the case..
  • This link [mysql.com] will take you to the contact page. Luckily for me, it's not too difficult to migrate my projects over to PostgreSQL - although I will have to brush up on administration after having not used it for a couple of years...

    I actually thought this was just another ludicrous press release from our favourite proprietory software vendor to give them something positive to say on the 7th, but after finding the same release on MySQL's site, it seems confirmed. I'm damned if I'm using anything from a company t
  • by astrashe (7452) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:32PM (#13478101) Journal
    MySQL AB has given lots of people very useful software for free, for a long time.

    Now we're supposed to hate them because of this deal?

    My relationship with them has been one in which they give me free database software, don't restrict how I use it, and I give them nothing.

    Even people who don't use MySQL themselves benefit from all of the dynamic web sites -- the WordPress blogs, the sites with threaded discussion boards, etc. Or from their ISPs being about to use MySQL for the backend of all sorts of critical services -- mail forwarding tables, etc.

    It's like none of that matters without absolute orthodoxy on the part of MySQL AB. None of the good stuff matters, if they do one thing we don't like.

    • My relationship with them has been one in which they give me free database software, don't restrict how I use it, and I give them nothing.

      How did you manage to get use of the software without restrictions?

      Most of us have to comply with their licence agreement. Or are you simply ignoring it and hoping they don't bother to sue you?

  • by krow (129804) * <brian@nOSPaM.tangent.org> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:45PM (#13478183) Homepage Journal
    So, lets begin this statement with "these are my thoughts, not those that represent MySQL's". First of all I was one of the people who had us stop building on SCO in the first place. For a while now we have not been building for SCO, and had only been providing binaries for customers who had an existing contract with us for those binaries.

    The source code for MySQL has always compiled for SCO unixen and since MySQL is open source anyone was free to compile it themselves. We don't ship Amiga binaries either but I can tell you that there is a group out there who keeps MySQL working on that platform as well. So our lack of support for SCO just meant that users were forced to either compile MySQL themselves or find a third party who were distributing the binaries.

    Now why should we provide binaries for SCO? I'm of a couple of minds about this, and put some thought into it before I said "yes, lets do it" internally at MySQL.

    First our users are our users no matter what platform they are on. This isn't about SCO, this is about the users of that platform who deserve to be able to get support. There are still a lot of SCO servers sitting out there and the users deserve to be treated like any other users. They didn't pick SCO's battle and many of them have legacy applications that can not be easily ported or easily rewritten. The choice of a vendor is not always an option.

    Second, its about pushing open source into new territories. Years ago, I think 15 or so, I wrote a network client for the Mac. At the time a certain figurehead of the open source movement made a point of asking me "why would you ever write code for a closed source platform?". I have thought a lot about this over the years. Personally I believe that open source is not a all or nothing situation, and I believe that its going to take a while before we get to an all open source environment, which I am not at all certain will ever occur. Bringing well supported open source applications to closed source environments provides the users of these platforms a different opinion. Its an opinion that "maybe you should consider open source". I am all for spreading the gospel.

    Keep in mind that our community binaries are GPL. This means that applications built on SCO that make use of these binaries must also stick within the agreement of the GPL or they have to buy licenses that in turn fund developers to work to create more GPL software. Its a win either way, we see either more GPL software being published or more GPL software being created via payment through licenses or subscriptions.

    SCO OpenServer already ships with a number of other open source projects and if you look through many open source mailing lists you will see ongoing support and patches for OpenServer. What we will be doing is treating it like any other platform. Personally I hope that an open source stack on SCO creates more value for their customers and for SCO personally since I believe that this will push both SCO and their customers toward an open source path.
  • by defile (1059) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:48PM (#13478217) Homepage Journal

    And one thing businesses do is make money.

    One of the ways businesses make money is by offering goods or services.

    Some of the goods and services MySQL AB has offered in the past include:

    • Technical support for MySQL
    • Teaching MySQL
    • Certification for MySQL
    • Proprietary licenses for MySQL (so it can be incorporated in a software package).

    I haven't followed MySQL in awhile, but it seems like SCO is actually just buying into some kind of reseller program MySQL AB is offering and calling it a partnership, which is kind of like buying some routers from Cisco and saying Cisco is your business partner.

    If someone walks into your store and tries to buy something, are you going to say no?

  • MySQL is smart (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cnerd2025 (903423) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @02:59PM (#13478314)

    Why would MySQL AB work with them? Because SCO's dollars buy as much as anyone else's dollars. MySQL hasn't changed its license from the GPL. If it did, I'd stop using them, and so would many other geeks/nerds out there. Hold your horses. McBride may be a major-league asshole, as our President would say, but that doesn't mean SCO Group as a whole is. With their cases losing ground, they've begun to actually make some innovations. Maybe it's like the early evolution of our species. We were very few and far between living in a desolate climate (deserts in Africa) and therefore Homo sapiens adapted ways of surviving. SCO seems to finally be doing this. I don't favor the company for their stupid litigation, and I think they are still a dying company, but perhaps they will turn away from Satan and find a balance between commercial software and free softawre. One can hope, anyway...

    Of course, I wouldn't put it too far out of probability that SCO will accuse MySQL AB of violating trade secrets and breach of contract. Who knows...

  • by formal_entity (778568) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @03:10PM (#13478393) Homepage
    Some people saying talking about 'the open-source' community switching to PostgreSQL because of this; that's ridiculous seeing as PostgreSQL has already adopted it's product to SCO's OpenServer. They even have a FAQ about it on their site: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_SCO.html [postgresql.org] Besides, MySQL's code is still GPL and it's still more widely deployed on web hosting companies so it would be very inconvenient to drop MySQL support for PostgreSQL.
  • by solman (121604) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @04:45PM (#13478982)
    What would you have MySQL do?

    SCO: We need MySQL on our platform and we'll pay you the cost of migration plus a hefty profit (for some reason we've been having difficulty hiring new developers recently).

    MySQL: Because you hate open source, we refuse to take your money, even though we can use your money to make open source stronger. Go give it to some closed source company.

    All this press release means is that MySQL will be available on another platofrm (admittedly a dying platform). Its just another step on the path to dethroning Oracle [I encourage anybody still using Oracle who has not seen MySQLs new administrative tools to take a look. In my opinion they render Oracle obsolete for any new project spending less than $1M on hardware.]
  • by petrus4 (213815) on Sunday September 04, 2005 @08:15PM (#13480084) Homepage Journal
    ...is the reason why I switched from MySQL a while back to Postgres. At the time, although MySQL still had a version licensed under the GPL, the link to it was buried in the site. What was a lot easier to find was the commercially licensed version, which they had links to/info about slathered all over the site. This caused me to worry that eventually the GPL licensed version would disappear entirely.

    Although Postgres [postgresql.org] is unfortunately a bit bigger, (the elephant isn't its mascot for nothing ;-)) it's a fantastic db and is enormously scalable. The best part is that legally it also uses open source's underdog, the BSD license.

    It is unfortunate that MySQL AB have shown such lack of vision in the past couple of years...but methinks they're probably about to find out that commercialistic shortsightedness carries its' own reward:- Eventual irrelevance.
  • by bigsmoke (701591) <bigsmoke@gmail.com> on Sunday September 04, 2005 @09:23PM (#13480413) Homepage Journal

    There seems to exist some confusion here about dual licencing. Once a project has been released under the GPL, you can't just unrelease it. All the provisions of the GPL keep applying to the software which has already been released.

    If MySQL AB were to really only release MySQL under commercial licences in some alternate universe in the future, there would still be an open source developer community which can do with the the GPL'ed versions of MySQL whatever they damn well please.

    I'm not sure about other developers, but one of the foremost reasons that I use GPL'ed software as the basis for my own projects is continuity. This continuity in the availability of MySQL's source can never be undone by MySQL AB, since they've already done the right thing with each version of MySQL that they released under the GPL.

    Noone is complaining when a project is released under just a GPL licence. Why not? Because the viral licence has some properties that many people like.

    But, sometimes there are businesses that want to use a project in their own product which is released under a more restrictive licence. This is what the commercial licences are for. Note that is actually very sound from a business perspective, because they're basically saying:

    • If you are a believer in open source, use our stuff as open source and, if you release your stuff, release it as open source.
    • But, if you want to release your product under a more restrictive licence, just pay us some money.

    Such a form of dual licencing actually adds such liberties as which are often sought when a company bases their product on a more liberal, BSD-like licence instead of a viral licence such as the GPL. And they achieve this without making themselves vulnerable to the takers who don't give back often warned for by BSD opponents.

    Also, I read a rant on this page about this being as much as a problem as QT. Which problem? Even the Windows version of QT4 has now been released under the GPL. If anyone still believes that QT has licencing problems, he's either a GPL opponent, a BSD proponent or very ill informed.

If money can't buy happiness, I guess you'll just have to rent it.

Working...