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?"
It's simple (Score:5, Funny)
Re:It's simple (Score:3, Interesting)
In SQL NULL represents the the absence of a value. In MySQL an explicit NULL may also represent the next value of a pseudo-sequence and an implicit NULL may represent an implicit default value (a zero or empty string) determined by MySQL. See here [sql-info.de] and this Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] for more info.
Why do think that this is better? In one case you call the function and then use the value, and in the other case you insert the row and then ask what the new PK is. I'm not sure how one is bett
Re:It's simple (Score:3, Interesting)
Because... (Score:5, Insightful)
MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:5, Interesting)
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=20050524
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.
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: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:what crap (Score:3)
My apologies -- you are correct. I had missed the part where you said it had gone from LGPL to GPL/commercial. My comment was under the incorrect understanding that it went from GPL to GPL+commercial, so ignore everything I said.
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
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:3, Insightful)
Not according to the FSF, who wrote them both... [fsf.org]
Re:MySQL, Qt, and Other Lock-In Scemes (Score:3, Informative)
"stopping someone's heart with a defribulator"
That is what they are used for. The electrical charge causes the muscles in the heart to contract for the duration of the charge; About 2 to 3 seconds. When the charge is released the muscles relax. This stopping of the muscles causes the muscle spasms to stop and allow (in most cases) normal heart rythm to continue.
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:Because... (Score:3, Funny)
Also... count(*) is bad form... count(1) is more efficient in most SQL databases... ohh and the missing "'".
Re:Because... (Score:4, Funny)
*ducks*
Re:WHO CARES (Score:5, Interesting)
Sitting here bitching does a few things. It allows MySQL users a chance to vent a little; it gives MySQL a means to judge user reactions to their collaboration with SCO (they had to expect controversy) and it gives users who might have been unaware of the issues useful information when deciding whether to deploy MySQL. And it gives supporters of MySQL a chance to put the other side of the story.
This is a discussion forum. The point is to discuss issues like this. A lot of that discussion, the side of it that you disagree with, is going to sound like "bitching".
Most of what you say is useful, but STFU is never helpful.
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.
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
Re:doubtful (Score:5, Informative)
Re:doubtful (Score:2)
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.
That's the one thing that won't happen (Score:3, Informative)
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:That's the one thing that won't happen (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:doubtful (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
yea, just think of all that potential revenue coming from those millions of SCO customers
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Funny)
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!
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.
Re:Maybe... (Score:5, Informative)
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).
Re:MySQL may be next target of SCO lawsuit (Score:2, Interesting)
mysql ab should have spoken with ev1 (Score:2, Insightful)
sum.zero
MySQL Business Strategy (Score:4, Funny)
2 - Point gun at foot
3 - Pull trigger
Re:MySQL Business Strategy (Score:5, Funny)
This could be a good thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:This could be a good thing (Score:2)
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?
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:Judging one by the company he keeps (Score:2)
How are the same people who called the GPL 'unconstitutional' going to lend it credibility, even if they were a credible business in the first place, and not a dying company reliant on income from their existing customers (or from *suing* their existing customers)?
Please stop hogging the crack pipe.
New Playing Field (Score:4, Insightful)
One question? (Score:2)
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.
Re:One question? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:One question? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:One question? (Score:4, Funny)
>
> Not trying to be funny or lame here, I seriously want to know how to say the bloody thing.
Well it's *spelled* PostgreSQL, but it's pronounced "Throatwobbler Mangrove."
Re:One question? (Score:3, Interesting)
People tend to try to make a word out of any acronym they have to use regularly, it's generally easier to say.
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.
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, th
Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... panic! (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Teacher/MySQL champion... now in crisis... pani (Score:5, Insightful)
Uh - Best of Both Worlds? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds? (Score:5, Interesting)
The mysql dual licence was actually hiding a deeper schizophrenia that has just now showed itself. Apparently, they never believed they could really make enough money with GPL'ed software, so now they are doing this.
I'm not sure what the moral of the story might be yet, but quite possibly it is: Beware of what lurks behind the dual licence.
Re:Uh - Best of Both Worlds? (Score:4, Informative)
Join? (Score:5, Funny)
i wish i had mod points (Score:2)
sum.zero
Re:Join? (Score:2)
PS: If this is true, and the deal goes through completely, I will be switching my website over to Postgres. Thanks for all the fish MySQL AB. It was (somewhat) good while it lasted.
Followed By (Score:5, Funny)
right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:right (Score:2)
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.
Re:right (Score:3, Informative)
It's usually easier to go mysql->postgres than postgres->mysql (or for that matter, anything->mysql).
However, there are many incompatibilities. For some applications that type of migration can be quite a bit of work.
Why? (Score:2)
Because business arrangements typically are more profitable than releasing software under the GPL, even if you sell support agreements.
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?
Re:Bizarro World? (Score:2)
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
heh (Score:2)
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)
Asperger's syndrome (Score:3, Funny)
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
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.
April 1st?! (Score:5, Funny)
That Answers My Question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:That Answers My Question (Score:3, Informative)
I haven't tested MySQL 5 yet, but PG 8 is almost 1.5x the speed of MySQL 4.1.
Can't help but think that...... (Score:5, Insightful)
they need to search through stolen linux code (Score:3, Funny)
Giving SCO more rope to hang themselves with? (Score:3, Interesting)
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."
Why? (Score:2)
MySQL is a business.. they want more mareket.. this gives them more..
Re:Why? (Score:2)
MySql didn't think this one out.
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:Oh, bullshit. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Oh, bullshit. (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sco+site
third result
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
MySQL AB
Not a real partnership... (Score:5, Informative)
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
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.
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: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
Daryl gave someone at MySQL (Score:2)
Daryl buys chapstick by the case..
Why not let MySQL know your feelings... (Score:2)
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
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: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?
Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's (Score:4, Informative)
MySQL is platform agnostic. Developers themselves use FreeBSD, OSX, Linux, Windows, and Solaris, but we ship MySQL on several other platforms as well. Our goals are in the database market, we don't ship an OS, and we try to stay out of the "which OS is better" argument.
Just like we don't resale Linux, FreeBSD, Windows, or Solaris, we do not resell SCO OpenServer as well. The partnership does benefit us by selling more support contracts, but it doesn't change the fact that we didn't and still don't sell OpenServer or any other SCO product.
At some point the courts will make a decision on SCO's case and their behavior, but no matter what in the end there will still be SCO users and they will need support.
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?
MySQL is smart (Score:3, Interesting)
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...
Switching to PostgreSQL because of this is silly (Score:3, Interesting)
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.]
This sort of thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
Although Postgres [postgresql.org] is unfortunately a bit bigger, (the elephant isn't its mascot for nothing
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.
Some clarity about dual licencing (Score:3, Informative)
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:
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.
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nick
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:2)
And if a simple posting on a site stops you from using a product,well, you were never qualified to make such a decision in the first place.
Re:Just use PostgreSQL... (Score:4, Funny)
Judging by the number of people who use that argument against PostgreSQL, I wouldn't be surprised at all if he were behind MySQL.
Heck, if MySQL's PR dept. can't come up with other compelling arguments, they might as well try reverse psychology.
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.
Re:i will tell you why (Score:2)
Thought the whole point about open source was that anyone could examine the code without having to enter into some tangentially-related business arrangement? Guess I was wrong.
Re:Yet another reason to not use MySQL (Score:2)