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?"
They kidnapped their dolphin Sekila and left a note that said "You know what's great with tuna? Dolphin."
Dollars always trumps the Constitution. Haven't you been paying attention to recent politics?
Reminder: Apple owns 1/255th of the internet.
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.
Slashdot: Where people pretend to be twice as smart as they really are by behaving like children.
1 - Load gun
2 - Point gun at foot
3 - Pull trigger
I will play the optimist and say that this may help the cause. Clearly SCO is on the ropes. MySQL way be the olive branch that allows SCO to exit all this and save a little face. MySQL get a platform with which to grow market share against other commercial databases.
Why, oh, why would MySql risk their reputation knowing how SCO looks to the entire open source community?
I imagine nobody is happier to hear this that PostgreSQL. Their popularity is about to skyrocket as countless OSS projects look for alternatives to MySQL.
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?
SELECT * FROM mysql, sco WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces
Okay, so a philosopher, a philologist, and a philatelist walk into a bar...
they risk a large-scale negative reaction in order to attempt a push into a small, dying market niche.
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
Who cares? MySQL is one of the few open source companies that seems to be making the headlines doing business in the real world! Good for them!
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?
A couple fans told me that my last journal entry was mint; give it a shot. Hope you like.
This is like Hasbro or Fisher Price teaming up with Nambla, Ebony magazine teaming up with the KKK, or Oscar Meyer teaming up with PETA.
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
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
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.
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
I just checked the date! and it's not April 1st .. whats going on here?!?
-Rob
I've been trying to make a decision as to which open source SQL database to go with for use with the DBMail server that I plan on installing here at home. Considering that I couldn't give a rat's ass about web applications (which DBMail is not), it seems like PostgreSQL is the answer. And with the right optimizations, it's likely to be nearly as good a performer as MySQL. Fuck SCO and anyone who choses to work with them.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Going into partnership with SCO just after Novell has applied to freeze their funds with the intention of pillaging them via the courts is not the brightest of ideas.
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
grep isnt good enough for them, they need a database to insert all the linux code into so they can search it. and they cant use it under the GPL anymore and postgres is out of the question looks like they'll have to do business with mysql
Surely, with SCO as desperate as they are, and MySQL being their 'lifeline', they cant go all-out on the GPL as they have been in the press incase they anger the folks at MySQL?
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."
The GP is a muppet but I doubt he's got much to do with PostgreSQL. In my experience they're a nice enought bunch and Postgres is a good product, don't let one idiot put you off.
Would it have been better to have cost the PostgreSQL project money by just posting a link? It isn't like they are a for profit org that has money to spare.
" before mysql starts it's baseless lawsuits similar to SCO's."
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.
@de_machina
Is there any evidence for this other than a 1-paragraph CNET story? There's NOTHING on the mysql site about this, although there's a big thing on SCO's homepage - which, of course, doesn't seem to have any quotes from MySql.
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.
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.
They won't be able to do another Linux FUD lawsuit. Novell is suing them for more than they're worth. Now let's just hope that they win...
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.
I don't know any current SCO employees, but I have always assumed that there were quite a few normal techies working away at SCO, trying their best to ignore the crap coming from management. I know I have often disagreed with the choices/directions of management in companies I have worked for (though, obviously not to the level of SCO's choices). Some of those people have probably stayed to continue their work, despite the behavior at the top.
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.
I don't care how good PostresSQL is, if it has people like you behind it I want no part of it.
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.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
UPDATE companytypes SET mysql = 'justgotworse', sco = 'wasalreadyshitty' WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces;
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.
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.
MySQL AB has given lots of people very useful software for free, for a long time.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PostgreSQL first paragraph has audio sample
I've worked on MySQL since I started working with PHP, and I've even taught it at the college level, where I praised the database for being free and open. I can't bare to look at myself in the mirror now that they have gone and signed a deal with The Devil -- now I have to go and ammend my upcoming textbook for PostgreSQL! I could never support MySQL again.
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.
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Comments like that make me want to hunt you down and slap some sense into you. It's fecking software for christsakes.
TODO: Something witty here...
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.
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?
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.
1 72943589
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.
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...
Some people saying talking about 'the open-source' community switching to PostgreSQL because of this; that's ridiculous seeing as PostgreSQL has already adopted it's product to SCO's OpenServer. They even have a FAQ about it on their site: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs.FAQ_SCO.html Besides, MySQL's code is still GPL and it's still more widely deployed on web hosting companies so it would be very inconvenient to drop MySQL support for PostgreSQL.
> How do you pronounce PostgreSQL? ...
>
> 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."
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
Some people do it for the principle of the thing. That's a big Open Source mentality, where have you been?
Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
Really. If any of us were offered to have our salaries increased by 2-4 times would we say no? Even if it meant working for a company who's policies you weren't 100% comfortable with because they do (a small amount of) business with someone disreputable? This is a no brainer folks. Mergers and co-projects come and go, and that is life in the business world. (besides maybe MySQL will end up being sued for using SCO technology) What can we do about it. Plenty. Find an alternative. Postgres is a fine choice. Continue to use mysql for free, but stop paying for support and anything else mysql related. Be vocal about this to mysql. Start requesting your favorite aps have ODBC or postgres or whatever support in addition to mysql. Or add that functionality yourself. BUT sitting here bitching about it does no good. Show your contempt with your actions and your pocket book. MySQL will do as it thinks it needs to do, not as a few malcontents tell them it has to do. This is how it should be. Want it changed? Then convince MySQL they need to react differently in the future with ACTION.
Is there a good howto for people with a LAMP background? This news is enough to make me switch from mySQL to postgreSQL. I've looked at it a number of times before but could never figure it out.
Nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
I guess I have a project to convert tonight. Bye MySQL, it's been a nice 5 years. Every company I've worked for, I've pointed them at MySQL for all their web database needs. My fingers are changing directions now.
Sig: I stole this sig.
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.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Sequel is a common pronounciation of "SQL". Not saying it's right (or wrong), but I've certainly heard a lot of people say it that way.
People tend to try to make a word out of any acronym they have to use regularly, it's generally easier to say.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
What would you have MySQL do?
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.]
> > ... rather, it forces proprietary developers to use MySQL under the proprietary license.
> 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 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.
The LGPL license would have given them that choice.
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.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
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.
...is the reason why I switched from MySQL a while back to Postgres. At the time, although MySQL still had a version licensed under the GPL, the link to it was buried in the site. What was a lot easier to find was the commercially licensed version, which they had links to/info about slathered all over the site. This caused me to worry that eventually the GPL licensed version would disappear entirely.
;-)) it's a fantastic db and is enormously scalable. The best part is that legally it also uses open source's underdog, the BSD license.
Although Postgres 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.
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.
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.
A firewall can not protect you from yourself. Turn off what you do not need. Do not use the firewall to do your work.
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.
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.