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
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!
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.
" 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
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.
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.
UPDATE companytypes SET mysql = 'justgotworse', sco = 'wasalreadyshitty' WHERE mysql_forces = sco_forces;
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.
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.
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.
> 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."
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.
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...:-( )
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.
Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
> > ... 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.