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?"
Use PostgreSQL. It's miles better anyway.
This is a cut & paste of a piece of advertisement and marketing fluff. I don't care how good PostresSQL is, if it has people like you behind it I want no part of it.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
*rolls eyes* It is not 'information'. It is awful corporatese that tells me almost nothing. If you had bothered to understand it yourself and posted stuff about your personal experiences or understanding of how Postgress SQL is better than MySQL, I'd be all ears. But this garbage deserves a -1 spam rating.
Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
Given that the GPL is designed to subvert copyright, and that the constitution grants congress the power to copyright to promote arts and sciences, and further given that it can be argued that the GPL goes against that goal (Stallman has expressly stated that he would rather have GPL'd software, even if the non-GPL'd is better); I think the claim to unconstitutionality is compelling. Most likely, it's unarguable in court, since the FSF lawyers have worked within the system and followed the law to the letter. The SCOTUS would have to rule from the bench based on something other than the letter of the law, implying that the FSF is some sort of subversive organization, and as much as I agree with that, I don't want to go down that road. It's too much of a "nuclear option" that could be used against things I like, or even me personally.
I'd rather fight the GPL other ways, by not using it, by avoiding participating in such projects when possible; by constructively engaging those who do participate and explaining my viewpoints in a gentlemanly manner (something sorely lacking in politics these days), by supporting OSS under better licenses such as BSD, and by producing software so good that no GPL weenie can beat it. That's the American way!
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Return to the bridge from which you spawned.
... rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.
Nothing forces anybody to do anything. What a great troll. So by your logic, the GPL license forces proprietary developers to ignore the product altogether? More license options means more choice, and choice is *good*. This is like the argument against the BSD license: but... but... someone could develop their own closed source app! Sure, but it doesn't take away the fact that the source is still there for the original product.
And while you're mentioning different projects, any project which requires you to assign your copyright (in order to get your code integrated into the main distribution) is able to do dual licensing. Asterisk is another one which springs to mind. If you don't like it, you can just release your own software distribution under a different name.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
There are huge numbers of people in the public who view your "partnering" with SCO as such a bad idea that they, myself included, will punish you in the marketplace for providing SCO with a aura of legitimacy.
I was about to deploy our company's new cluster using MySQL as the primary DB. This will not happen now. We will convert our prior work to use PostGreSQL, regardless of timeline, regardless of cost of development.
I will not do business with a company who partners with SCO. Period.
You might want to review what happened to EV1.
Get down on your knees and suck some more you little cockgobbler.
You're a sad, sad excuse for a human.