Slashdot Mirror
MySQL and SCO Join Forces
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?"
Incidently, PostgreSQL also conforms to most of the SQL 2003 standard as well.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
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.
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.
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.
_ 948.html
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.
...because MySQL stands to make money off of this?
Not if Novell have anything to do with it.
(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).
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
As the devs often seem to abbreviate it to "Postgres", which I'd pronounce "Post-gres", I pronounce it as "Post-gres-Q-L".
I appear to have a blog. Odd.
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article_ 948.html
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.
I'm getting out while MySQL is still portable to PG.
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL first paragraph has audio sample
try this link% 3Awww.mysql.com
_ 948.html
:: SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase ...
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sco+site
third result
http://www.mysql.com/news-and-events/news/article
MySQL AB
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
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.
You can't grep a dead tree.
Not small companies... unless you're 100% GPL MySql is not an option (OK you can fudge it by sticking to 3.23 which is what we do (we're about 95% GPL but that 5% is *important*) but if you want decent features Sqlite is better, and Postgresql is *much* better for enterprise stuff).
You can find tons of quality hosting companies. http://www.postgresql.org/support/professional_hos ting
Why switch to Linux when you can find tons of stores selling computers with Windows already installed?!
Robby Russell
PLANET ARGON
Robby on Rails
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.
Morality is usually taught by the immoral.
OT warning!!!
"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.
it is only after a long journey that you know the strength of the horse.