MySQL and SCO Join Forces 516
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?"
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
mysql ab should have spoken with ev1 (Score:2, Insightful)
sum.zero
This could be a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Judging one by the company he keeps (Score:5, Insightful)
Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?
New Playing Field (Score:4, Insightful)
doubtful (Score:5, Insightful)
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
right (Score:5, Insightful)
Bizarro World? (Score:2, Insightful)
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?
Smooth talking Daryl (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:1, Insightful)
It's off topic *and* a cut'n paste job from a propaganda flyer...
slashdot at its finest.
Can't help but think that...... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:MySQL Business Strategy (Score:1, Insightful)
?
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Time for change! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is silly sensationalism. Its was probably ill advised on MySQL's part to sign a partnership with SCO at this point, but the chances this has anything to do with SCO's legal insanity against Linux are about zero. MySQL probably just had some money thrown their way to do integration work on SCO's product which lots of people still use and rely on. That product and the people working on it, unfortunate as they are, have little to do with the insanity of Darl McBride and his Linux witch hunt.
MySQL being a for profit organization they probably just wanted the business.
Chances are they will regret it because they will probably lose more users and customers than they will gain from the deal with SCO.
Oh, bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:right (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Is the whole company evil, or just the top execs? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Judging one by the company he keeps (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:New Playing Field (Score:5, Insightful)
It may cause gnashing of teeth on
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.
uhh, step back and take a breath (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani (Score:2, Insightful)
Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes.
MySQL AB seems to be a business (Score:5, Insightful)
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:
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?
OMG TEH SSco is bUying MYsqL!1!! (Score:1, Insightful)
So, what, does this mean that MySQL AB is compiling binaries of MySQL for OpenServer?
Might as well interpret the fact that they provide Windows installers as proof that they are conspiring with Microsoft.
Get a grip.
Re:Because... (Score:3, Insightful)
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!
Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani (Score:5, Insightful)
WHO CARES (Score:2, Insightful)
I always heard of PostgreSQL (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:New Playing Field (Score:3, Insightful)
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, there is a correlation between percieved ethical behavior and doing well as a business. At a certain point it all comes down to trust. If you can't trust a corporations business culture, then you don't want to do business with them. This does hurt the bottomline.
Re:That's the one thing that won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Get real.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
What would you have MySQL do? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.]
Re:what crap (Score:5, Insightful)
> Nothing forces anybody to do anything.
I see you are intentionally misinterpretting my words. So, here is the long version:
It [the GPL + proprietary licensing scheme] forces proprietary developers, if they want to include MySQL in their application, and if they don't want to GPL their own application, to use MySQL under the proprietary license.
> So by your logic, the GPL license forces proprietary developers to ignore the product altogether?
Of course -- unless they are prepared to GPL their own code. That's what the license says. Or are you saying that no one is "forcing" them to obey the license?
> More license options means more choice, and choice is *good*.
What crap. You are intentionally misrepresenting the situation.
The dual licensing scheme used by MySQL and Trolltech _removes_ choice. It removes the choice of proprietary developers to use MySQL and Qt under an Open Source license. The LGPL license would have given them that choice.
Let's see what Richard Stallman had to say [gnu.org] on this topic:
"Using the ordinary GPL for a library gives free software developers an advantage over proprietary developers: a library that they can use, while proprietary developers cannot use it."
"Using the ordinary GPL is not advantageous for every library. There are reasons that can make it better to use the Library GPL in certain cases. The most common case is when a free library's features are readily available for proprietary software through other alternative libraries. In that case, the library cannot give free software any particular advantage, so it is better to use the Library GPL for that library."
"This is why we used the Library GPL for the GNU C library. After all, there are plenty of other C libraries; using the GPL for ours would have driven proprietary software developers to use another--no problem for them, only for us."
MySQL and Qt are available under proprietary licenses. Therefore, rather than GPLing their own code, proprietary developers will simply use the proprietary license.
In other words, MySQL's and Trolltech's use of the GPL, instead of the LGPL, produces exactly the opposite effect to what Stallman prefers. The dual licensing scheme, rather than increasing the amount of Free software, simply encourages proprietary developers to use the proprietary versions of the libraries.
> This is like the argument against the BSD license: but... but... someone could develop their own closed source app!
That statement is completely illogical. It does not follow from what I wrote.
I am concerned about people who choose to run applications A, B, and C, becoming locked in to the underlying middleware, without realizing it. It happened before with Windows, and it could happen again with MySQL and Qt.
What you are saying is the exact opposite to what I wrote. I said that they should have used the _LGPL_, which _allows_ proprietary developers to use the code.
The advantage for the rest of us is that anyone who uses those proprietary applications are only locked in to those applications. What they avoid is the _Network Lock-in_ to the underlying middleware, which is much worse.
As to your last paragraph, I have no idea what it has to do with my original post.
I am advocating for people to be careful about the software they use, and to think about the long-term effects of the licenses for that software.
If you call that trolling, then I have to wonder what your agenda is.
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Well... strange for 3 things: (Score:2, Insightful)
Also, you seem to imply that their commercial license somehow is bad, but isn't it better that companies who CANNOT release their software under GPL are allowed to use and redistribute an open source database such as MySQL, than forcing those companies to redistribute a closed source database instead?
Despite all the open source love on this site, few readers seem to actually understand how the GPL or software licensing works. The copyright holder is always free to distribute his software under ANY licenses. I can create a piece of software and release it under GPL *AND* the BSD License *AND* the Apache License *AND* my own commercial license *AND* the Creative Commons License and so on. You, the user, is then free to choose which license you wish to user my software under.
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:3, Insightful)
Not according to the FSF, who wrote them both... [fsf.org]
Re:uhh, step back and take a breath (Score:3, Insightful)
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?
Re:flamebait?? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to call SCO assholes, do so. They aren't NAZIs.
If you want to take the high ground and say you have a valid analogy, you've got a real hard sell. Go ahead: What precisely do you think makes SCO and/or MySQL AB Nazi-like in an appropriate way? (That is, an insightful comparison vs. a just a rabid name calling match?)
On second thought, please do not answer...stop looking for a win here. You lost in the same way that you would have lost on Usenet. Yes, just stop using NAZIs unless you're really talking about assholes on that level; genocide, mass murder of the weak/handicapped, wide reaching political prosecution, and kicking off a world war with the intent of golbal conquest. The only society that even comes close to the scale is the USSR during Stalin's time...and there's a good case that Stalin's reign was worse. Either way, we're not talking SCO or MySQL on any even casul level.
Re:what crap (Score:3, Insightful)
I think the dual license situation of MySQL is fair. It does remove choice, but I think there's still an incentive to open source software. Money is a powerful motivator, and I think being able to use the MySQL engine free (as in beer) will motivate at least a few developers to decide to release open source instead of proprietary. It's not the best situation, but it's still a much better deal than a proprietary license.