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?"

Comments

Re:Just use PostgreSQL...

[VGPowerlord]

Incidently, PostgreSQL also conforms to most of the SQL 2003 standard as well.

Re:doubtful

[trewornan]

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.

Not a real partnership...

[KajiCo]

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

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.

Re:Maybe...

[Dogtanian]

...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).

Re:One question?

[veraction]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL first paragraph has audio sample

Re:Oh, bullshit.

[way2trivial]

try this link
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=sco+site% 3Awww.mysql.com
third result

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

MySQL AB :: SCO Partners With MySQL AB to Lower Costs and Increase ...

Now about SCO, this is my opinion, not MySQL's

[krow]

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.