Slashdot Mirror
MySQL CEO Insists He's Not Supping With The Devil
jg21 writes "In the continuing saga of the decision by MySQL previously discussed here on Slashdot to make a deal with SCO Group, the company's CEO Marten Mickos has now granted an interview in which he addresses the inevitable criticism that the deal has provoked in the F/OSS community. His main defense seems to be that other companies have ported to SCO too. He admits money too played a part." From the article: "We believe that porting a GPL version of MySQL for the SCO OpenServer platform gives thousands of users more options when it comes to choosing a database -- which is a good thing. The deal produces revenue for us and this allows us to hire more open
source developers. We didn't make the decision lightly; we knew SCO was a sensitive subject with the free software and open source communities."
I wonder why this is an issue. If someone wants to port its own software on a new platform, who should argue against it?
Why can't
... and just watch a million geek blogs get converted to SQLite.
In the long-run I think Postgres will eat MySQL's lunch because now, there's a native Windows version *and* the whole dual licensing crap will make most small commercial software developers move away from MySQL (I know I won't be developing any applications (all non-PHP work) using MySQL)
Definition: sup verb To take into the mouth and swallow (a liquid)
I think MySQL would be wise to shut up about the whole MySQL / SCO thing and hope it goes away. I can't understand why they keep talking about it, this can only hurt them.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Yahoo handing in a demonstrator....
Google agreeing to censor....
And a massive amount of US companies doing extremely dodgy deals with disreputable regimes, you know like Dick Cheney meeting Saddam Hussein.
So MySql (a relatively poor database before SapDB came in) have agreed to work with SCO to get a bit of cash. Not the most moral decisions but certainly against what those who dealt with Saddam Hussein or the Chinese Goverment its pretty small fry.
An Eye for an Eye will make the whole world blind - Gandhi
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&c2 coff=1&q=%22Marten+Mickos%22+%22Darl+McBride%22&bt nG=Search
There's 142 hits if you spell Darl correctly.
Then came the debate as to whether mySQL was pure enough in Licensing. Once again, I didn't care, but thought "how can you criticize a man for giving you something for free?"
Now comes the flap about what else this company does to pay the rent. They still allow free use of mySQL, there's still other alternatives if you don't like his terms, I'm still using more industrial/ACID solutions, and others are still throwing rocks at the mySQL people.
The undisputably weird thing is that the good folks giving away mySQL are taking more abuse from the community than if they'd never given it away at all. How's that for incentive for everyone else???
Everybody's a libertarian 'till their neighbour's becomes a crack house.
I hope they got cash up front or else it could end up being a write off pretty soon!
_ sco_countersuit/
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/08/ibm_drops
"While IBM continues to believe that SCO infringed IBM's valid patents, IBM agreed to withdraw its patent counterclaims to simplify and focus the issues in this case and to expedite their resolution. The little discovery that SCO has produced regarding IBM's patent claims makes clear that there is insufficient economic reason to pursue these claims. Since SCO's sales have been, and are, limited, a finding of infringement would yield only the most modest royalty or award of damages and would not justify the expense of continuing prosecution of these claims," said IBM.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Oh, bullshit. SCO and the OpenServer platform are dieing. This was a quick cash grab and nothing more.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Actions speak louder than words.
OK, you're here. This is the bridge they're all jumping off and it looks like your turn will be coming up real soon.
Well, I'll be leaving you now.
There are at least a few people still locked into the OpenServer platform, but sometime in the future, they will have to migrate to Linux after the final nail has been driven into SCO. When they eventually do migrate to Linux, they will have to make some choices as to what database to migrate to as well. Will it be Oracle? Will it be PostgreSQL? Well, if they have already beem using MySQL on OpenServer, they will probably stay with MySQL on Linux. Do you see where this is going?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Isn't "money grubbing" and "do anything for a buck" a pretty good description of all corporations?
I'm not going to change your sheets again, Mr. Hastings.
That is a valid point. Too bad the GPL zealots are for freedom only when it benefits their own idea of what "free" is.
The owls are not what they seem
Supping? As in to take food and especially liquid food into the mouth a little at a time - Websters
Okay...
Religion for nerds. Stuff that really matters
MySQL only became popular because it's faster than postgresql for less complex database work. Postgresql is a better database. I just wonder why SCO went for a deal with MySQL instead of just taking the BSD-licensed Postgres. (I would use postgres myself if my webhost and CMS supported it)
Also, mySQL has a totally wrong view of the GPL: see this discussion on debian-legal.
-- Get free domain names
What's wrong with that ? MySQL A.B. is just a company that hires programmers who need to be payed at the end of the month. Why shouldn't it accept the job for the beauty of "OSS as development paradigm" ?
Gaim has been ported to Windows for some time now, yet I haven't seen one diatribe against the Gaim developers. Shameful!
Dolby Labs? They should have revoked Apple's right to use AAC the moment Fairplay came to exist. What a sham!
And Cygwin? We should all boycott Red Hat for that deal with the devil. How dare they!
Slashdot? They refuse to auto-detect Internet Explorer, and then serve up a blank page in those instances. How two-faced of them!
#DeleteChrome
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
They make it sound like porting mysql to openserver will require a very significant effort. Why would anyone pay for a supposedly unix-ish system that's so much unlike any other that most popular software can't be built on it without significant planning and reworking? I doubt that porting is really such a big deal as that, but still they deemed it worthy of press releases announcing their efforts and partnership.
MySQL made a simple business decision... right or wrong is completely subjective here. Eventually they will pay by losing some customers, but appart from that I see no reason why they should be defending their decision.
In other words, I don't think that my enemy's friends are my enemies.
On top of that, has the author considered that our priorities may be completely irrelevant to someone else? It's not like we can all take care of everything... like destroying Sco, and saving the world, and curing cancer, and feeding the poor, etc, etc, etc. At some point we have to start ignoring some of these priorities.
diegoT
Can you really trust SCO to honor the GPL? I mean come one after all they have done recently why would ANYONE trust them to honor any kind of contract? Let alone something invovling the GPL.
True, you are not required to purchase a license to use with proprietary apps, but if you want to, say because your PHB asks you to, you can certainly purchase licenses from Command Prompt, Inc or EnterpriseDB, each of which offers a few useful value adds and are both very active contributing members of the community.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
The key fact some OSS zealots miss is that SCO users only USE products from SCO, they ARE NOT ACTUALLY SCO. Granted, SCO pays MySQL. They're still not who's going to profit from the deal the most. The actual users are going to be. They may be forced to use SCO software. Occam's razor dictates they are because using it voluntarily is, at this time, indefinitely harder to explain.
Please stop trying to keep those poor souls from switching to open source software.
SCO OpenServer ships with PostgreSQL, and one of the core commercial PostgreSQL spinoff companies (EnterpriseDB) entered into a similar partnership with SCO.
Here is the thing. Even with this new round of partnerships, SCO today has fewer partners than at any time in their recent past. SCO needs these partners more than they need SCO. So I would not be at all surprised if SCO isn't offering some pretty compelling advantages to these would-be partners for providing them with some semblance of credibility.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
and a big goat like SCO can help him with a lawsuit should Larry (Ellison) barge n and buy him (MySQL).
Scott McNealy to Michael: "Suck my Sun!" Michael Dell to Scott : "Lick my Dell!"
...Oracle will have MySQL for breakfast soon enough.
So, SCO gives money to MySQL AB to "develop" mySQL on SCO's platform. This has already happened.
... (see SCO's current case against IBM).
... or the wrong bit of code ending up in the wrong release ... and then there's a problem. MySQL AB loses the case and all of a sudden SCO owns the code to MySQL (as an asset).
Later, SCO pulls MySQL AB into court over "violations" and "disputes" over who owns what rights to what code and how that code can be distributed
Then it all comes down to the judge and the contracts. And MySQL AB having to cough up everything for YEARS for the discovery phase of the trial.
So, an error in a contract
There is nothing stopping any company currently running a SCO OS from also running a Linux OS and looking at migrating right now.
There's no need to transition them with mySQL on SCO to get them to use mySQL on Linux.
If anything, it would be easier to do 1 migration straight to a 100% Linux system than to make 2 migrations (one from old database to mySQL on SCO and the other from mySQL on SCO to mySQL on Linux).
Hope they get the money from SCO first.
The reason why this is an issue is because:
1. A lot of OSS people were using MySQL
2. The company that MySQL is in bed with has a very well documented history of suing their partners and customers.
So it's a very good bet that SCO will sue MySQL at some point. Who knows; they might even sue MySQL customers. SCO is good at making things up and filing lawsuits.
Who knows; maybe by the amount of experience SCO has gained, they'll have
learned how to do so successfully this time. Perhaps they'll even end up
owning a part of of MySQL. Given the stupidity of the MySQL CEO, I'd say
there's a chance that SCO might even take control of MySQL. They certain
would, if they could. Their current business model appears headed for the tank.
This is why many are switching to other options. We won't need to worry about
any SCO involvement in the future.
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
That sounds a lot like saying, "we knew it'd piss them off, but we did it anyway!"
Look, I know I'm on the wrong side of this -- Slashdot groupthink is clearly forgiving of this, and I'm just not. But if ev1 had its feet held to the flame, I don't see why MySQL should walk away unscathed. Bottom line: it was a bad decision, and while most of the MySQL users won't care, some do, and they're entitled to vote their conscience.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37 [sco.com]
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
SCO: I hear that you're looking at migrating to another vendor, who is it? Microsoft, Red Hat...?
SCO Customer: You're not gonna pull that "AutoZone" crap on me, are you?
SCO: No, no, not at all. Hey, aren't you using MySQL for your applications?
SCO Customer: Yes, but it's the GPL'ed version, not the one you licences from them.
SCO: I think that's something for the courts to decide, after the loooong and expensive discovery process.
SCO Customer: WHAT THE...?!?!
MySQL: Hey! Why are you harrassing my end-users?
SCO: Don't you mean our customers ?
MySQL: Huh? Oh yeah, never mind.
How do we know SCO won't turn around and claim that the code in MySQL is tainted??? This is EXACTLY what they did to IBM.
0 37 [sco.com]
It's in the SCO press release that the money is to be used to produce a COMMERCIAL version of the database.
That's right looks like they duped the MySQL CEO who didnt read the contract before signing.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=172
From the SCO press release:
"The SCO Group, Inc. ("SCO") (Nasdaq: SCOX), a leading provider of UNIX(R) software technology for distributed, embedded and network-based systems, today announced that it has entered into an agreement with MySQL AB to jointly deliver a certified, commercial version of the popular MySQL database"
Perhaps, if you would do some research instead of just pretending you know what you are talking about (wtf am I talking about, that is the norm on Slashdot???) you would notice that SCO paid MySQL money for this deal. Read it up on Groklaw.
......idiot
Please do specify who you're talking about and provide some quotes to back up this namecalling.
Digital Citizen
But if Mickos ever did meet the Devil, he probably wouldn't need an interpreter.
We are all just going to start paying huge amounts of money for Oracle if MySQL is taken out? No, we'll switch to Postgres.
He's not supping with the devil, he's tupping with the devil. Ow.
I thought it was this?
As Columbo could argue, this the interview is precooked, seems to me a mere excuse for saying 'Hey, don't hate us, we're still good boys'. Pathetic.
SCO isn't the only party you have to worry about.
Now that Oracle owns a company whose technology mySQL is dependant upon they should probably be considered a threat as well. They are also an agressive company (ask PeopleSoft) and mySQL uses DB technologies from Berkely too? Others?
We could potentially have a situation where a litiguous bastard company like SCO makes a claim and demands $$ for that IP. The only difference in this case is that those claims would not be baseless.
Microsoft (reaper of other's creations) bought Sybase's database technologies fair and square. MSSQL 6.5 was a significant revision, and 7.0 was a complete rewrite (so they said.) Improving on existing technologies isn't a bad thing but in the OSS world it should be considered very carefully.
Who the mySQL CEO is hanging out with is not the issue. Where money is moving to/from isn't the issue.
The issue is that some litiguous bastard company has tried to bite us and we need to make sure we dont let it happen again.
The clear winner is Postgresql which has been developed from the ground up and isn't a convenient wrapper for other's technologies. ?? Maybe mySQL can use some of that money to negate their dependance on foreign IP. If not then postgresql is the answer.
MySQL deals with SCO; MySQL makes money up front. SCO takes the hit in the pocketbook.
Oracle owns InnoDB, won't let MySQL (and, hence) SCO, use it.
SCO loses money up front, doesn't get a real DB, speeding its demise.
That helps SUN, which helps Oracle, which then plays nice with MySQL. Or not.
PostgreSQL pushes forward during all of this, gaining market.
More new users learn how to pronounce PostgreSQL
MySQL becomes a farm team for Oracle and learns how to walk on the edge of a razor.
A bad girl can go good, but once a good girls gone bad.. Shes gone forever. Bye Bye Mysql, porting to postgres as we speak. It's problematic, but once everything is smoothed out it'll be ok.
I cannot and will not support anyone dealing with SCO. Period.
There is no "dual licencing crap" for companies that only use and do not intend to distribute proprietary versions of MySQL themselves.
Wrong. The client libraries are licensed such that any non-Free *client application* can only be run on MySQL if it is properly licensed aside from the GPL. I.e. if you only want to run Joomla, then you are OK, but if you run Jamroom, then you need the license.
This is because the client libs were changed from LGPL to GPL sometime ago. Perhaps you missed all the fuss under which PHP threatened to drop support for MySQL?
The whole "dual licencing crap" starts when a company chooses PostgreSQL for its licence only, because it intents to distribute it under another, proprietary licence, and give neither code nor money back to encourage its further free development. Its then another dead end and a code sink for Postgres' development.
You'd think that wouldn't you. And yet every company I can think of that has tried this has either: 1) died or 2) contributed back large parts (though not necessarily all) of their contributions back to the community. In at least one case, a large part of the work for the Win32 port was contributed by a company which provided a forked proprietary version on Windows.
Indeed PostgreSQL is progressing fast enough that I have doubts as to whether a proprietary version with non-trivial extensions could be effectively maintained without giving away all generally applicable aspects of one's code.
The main proprietary versions of PostgreSQL that exist at the moment are by the following companies:
1) Command Prompt. They include a replication technology (the only async replication to work on Windows to my knowledge), but have contributed back many other enhancements to the community.
2) EnterpriseDB. They include an Oracle compatibility layer but employ at least one PostgreSQL developer who works nearly full-time on contributions to the community. They are sponsors or co-sponsors for major enhancements such as two-phase commit, SQL-99 PSM support, etc.
3) Pervasive. They have made a number of major contributions to the community.
4) Fujitsu offers a customized version (at least in Australia) and they have made major contributions to the community as well.
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
After all, you can't do anal unless you're conscious.
MySQL AB is forming a business jpartnership with a company that is dedicated to destroying F/OSS.
It is *not* just a simple porting - it is way beyond that.
MySQL AB proudly displays on their website the news release about scox and mysqlab will be working together ect.
I think it's time for Slashdot to get a new icon to replace the old Caldera one that is currently being used. The SCO Group isn't Caldera Systems, and hasn't been since 2002. It's time for a news site such as this to get with the times, and to display a more current logo.
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
"MySQL signed a full-scale deal with SCO (including a joint marketing deal )... it wasn't just "porting the software". MySQL jumped into bed with them and snuggled up."
Oh, bullshit. SCO and the OpenServer platform are dieing. This was a quick cash grab and nothing more.
--
I'm sorry but I don't think you are not making sense. Even if it was just a quick cash grab, that does not invalidate the post you are responding to. Even if it was a one thing, that doesn't make MySQL AB any less hypocritical.
Besides, how do you know? OpenServer has been dying for over ten years, there is still lots of time for lots more business deals.
Two points, who is afraid of Oracle? 1. Are there thousands of SCO users/customers left? If so where the heck are they and why did they not sign up for newer versions of SCOware as evidence in the quarterly statments? 2. Is any gain customer share aginst the Oracle onslaught worth future reputation damage that relfects in how hard the cusotmer sales pitch might be to overcome this issue? Surely, there is a better move aginst Oracle than this choice..no??
Fred Grott(aka shareme) http://mobilebytes.wordpress.com
Clearly you have never migrated enterprise level applications fro one platform to another.
"Sure, I can help you, but I have a special fee structure for organizations/people like you..."
If you sell beer to the guy who keeps pissing in the well, the townspeople are going to get mad.
What does supping mean?
As soon as I read about the SCO deal I started looking at how to move to postgresql. Its going to require us to rethink some methodologies that have been used over the years but we'll also gain some interesting features as well.
In my view, given the consequences of what could have been disasterous for the open source community if even half of the wild claims that McBride and CO we know as SCO claimed, MySQL's CEO has made a very bad decision.
SCO should be made an example of, in fact. Long after SCO blows away in the wind, please avoid buying any products from any company McBride latches onto...like a leach that is.
I do not see how this helps the MySQL community, but I do see how it could help SCO with McBride at the wheel to sell even more copies of SCO to funnel into its legal claims to attack the open source community.
The first thing I am doing next quarter is moving to PostGRES, which isn't saying much because we are half way there already.
MySQL can die a prolonged and agonizing death as far as I am concerned, as there is no way I am supporting any project that brings incentives to companies who attack open source projects.
You should not either.
-Hack
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
.. he feels the need to defend the decision speaks volumes about the community's negative feelings on the who;e deal. SCO attacked the basis for the Linux community and I daresay the open source community as a whole. To butcher Sun Tzu; 'the friend of my enemy is my enemy'...
If Mickos weren't full of shit, he'd just say "they're evil, but their money's good". Not "SCO [is] a sensitive subject with [F/OSS people]".
--
make install -not war
The Ruby MySQL connector is licensed under the Ruby license - so, apparently (I think!!) there are no problems using the GPL version of MySQL with non-GPL licensed applications.
The situation is different with Java: the MM.MySQL connector (up to 2002) was LGPL licensed, but is now version 3.x of the MySQL GPL licensed connector. This is a good reason to keep a copy of the older connector around!
I *think* that the Python license is usable under either the GPL or the Python license.
This is a real pain - I would just switch over completely to PostgreSQL, except most reneted servers handle MySQL out-of-the-box, so MySQL is a little more convenient.
You know, had it been GAIM that was approached to port their software to SCO, very few people would get upset. While I'm NOT a fan of SCO, quite the opposite, actually, it shouldn't be a problem for a company to get paid to port their software to SCO. Isn't that part of the foundation of OSS? It's not like they are selling to SCO, they are making a port of the same software TO SCO.
Until some of this rhetoric that the F/OSS community has goes away, it won't be taken seriously in many of the "larger" corperations.
Does anyone but me think that this is a total non-issue? So what if they port it SCO, to cause a big fuss over it seems very anti-OSS to me. After all, isn't part of the movement to be able to run software on as many different configurations as possible?
Surely, we can think of many uses for modern technology in this area.
MySQL commercial licenses are already available for many platforms. Producing one certified for (tested on) SCO is simply more of the same. If you don't want to buy that from SCO, go right ahead and ask MySQL for a commercial (closed source) license instead. Your choice. As is the decision to need a commercial license instead of going with open source.
In other news Satan, sometimes known as Toby, insisted that he would NEVER do work with such a third rate evil empire;
"They're the margarine of evil, they're the Diet Coke of evil - one calorie, no more!"
Microsoft's representative for technology alliances, know to the world as Demon, not to befused with Daemon, "We've developed a working relationship with Devil incorporated; it combines the hellish features of damation, hell, fire and brimstone, with the userfriendly, integrated approach that Microsoft brings to their products - thus giving us access to over 100million desktops"
Steve Jobs quickly stepped out of his patented RDF, whilst between sips of his café Latté he states, "like, yo man, its like, we need to create like a world of, like cool devices and than Devil is so uncool - like, he is such a dampner on my Shacra, I'll need to do some medidation to get my ora in alignment"
MySQL has run on OpenServer all along, even if MySQL AB officially stopped supporting it in 2003.
The issue is that MySQL AB has now partnered with The SCO Group.
Yes, they've tried to be as arm's-length about it as possible (and who wouldn't?), but MySQL AB didn't need to do this at all in order to support OpenServer or UnixWare users.
My pet theory is that MySQL, blinded and distracted by the glitter of gold, have overreached themselves. Fine, if that's the case -- they made a bad decision. Nobody's perfect. And I understand that backing out of the partnership would be expensive and damaging, possibly too much so to risk now.
But, and this is the big but ("I like big buts and I cannot lie...", oops, sorry, </shrek>), in so doing, MySQL AB have irrevocably exposed themselves to The SCO Group and D'ohl MacBride, both of whom have a history of suing their business partners, customers and employers.
This does not fill me with confidence vis-a-vis the future viability of MySQL AB.
The code itself will not die, and perhaps there are even "suicide" or escrow clauses to help guarantee that, but without MySQL AB behind it, a large part of the customer base may dry up. Or -- who knows? -- if the corporation gets it in the neck and the MySQL codebase officially becomes an orphan, the detachment from the corporate apron strings may see deployment skyrocketing. But either way, I would not want to bet my company's future on it. If SCOX decides to take as many "enemy" projects with it as possible when it implodes, it may be able to mess things up for many years en passant.
On the gripping hand, there are a lot of very clever people working for MySQL AB, and they may yet have an ace-in-the-hole which they can't even hint at the existence of yet. If MySQL AB are able to turn around and get a quick judgement against SCOX for some misdemeanour, or otherwise hamstring them, putting their karma on the line as part of the process may well be a worthy risk.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
MySQL ported to OpenServer long ago. Not a problem.
MySQL have now partnered with SCOX, as a frog partners with a scorpion. Knotty problem.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
It is indeed a good point, and one which MySQL AB have made themselves. Not enough money to make a substantial difference, and as I understand it Boise Schiller already have their pound of flesh, but nevertheless valid.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Pardon me labouring the point, but MySQL AB have supported OpenServer in the past, without partnering -- AKA supping with the devil -- and AFAICT they didn't need to do it now.
Mickos is a calm, patient, rational individual as are several of the people I know within MySQL AB, but this is not the same as being infallible.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
A fellow developer is switching his MS-SQL-Server-backed app to PostgreSQL. He can make that switch without changing OSes and causing additional the additional disruption to his customer sites of switching OSes. When the time comes to upgrade or at least replace servers, they can save (at one company) ~AUD$13,000 in OS costs and per-seat fees by going from Windows 2000 to Mandriva Linux 2006.0, but switching OSes now would not save them anything up front and would be a trapdoor move (going back would -- if necessary -- be hard, whereas PostgreSQL and MS-SQL-Server services can coexist on the same machine and be fairly simply alternated between as things stand).
For the record, his decision to use PostgreSQL and not MySQL was based on PostgreSQL's stored procedure capabilities, not on politics.
Also for the record, the customer we share is delighted with the savings reaped so far by avoiding the addition of a Windows 2003 Server box to their network and eagerly looking forward to the day when they can delete another expensive humming monster from their rack.
After the PostgreSQL backend port is complete, the developer will be considering making the GUI frontend for the application more portable as well. Everything bar spreadsheet export works under WINE already, but that's a klunky solution.
By dealing with the frontend, backend and OS separately, the developer has made the whole migration more manageable, and more outright feasible in the first place.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
...sqlite and gdbm, horses for courses, although I do prefer the elephant by default.
I also install MySQL OOTB for customers to use with their apps, if the customer so specifies.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Parent is right on the money, and it's an epiphanous one-line explanation of Microsoft's politics, too.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
The deal produces revenue for us and this allows us to hire more open source developers.
The question is, how many self-respecting open source developers would want to get paid by SCO's money?
MySQL's dual licensing scheme is suspect anyway; while it matters less for a database than for something like a GUI toolkit (where dual licensing is really problematic), dual licensing in general reduces the ability of the community to contribute (because they can't accept contributions under the GPL), makes the developers less responsive to community needs (because the developers attempt to optimize profit in parallel with FOSS goals), and makes it difficult to fork (because any fork would have to compete with the original developer, who has an advantage in being able to derive revenue from commercial licensing). While software like MySQL may ship under an optional open source license, it is not run like an open source development project.
I won't be sorry to see MySQL go anyway; technologically, it is getting better, but there are enough good relational databases out there that are truly FOSS and don't have the same history of technical corner cutting as MySQL.
However, let's not fool ourselves: business is business and what matters is the bottom line. I for one truely beleive him when he says that he was aware of the potential outrage in the Free Software community, but that making the product available to yet another vendor's customers was the decisive factor.
Software is not supposed to be about how to work around a useability issue. - Ken Barber
Why do you call this doubly accommodating arrangement "crap"?
Sure, PostgreSQL's BSD license is less restrictive, but why should MySQL (or anyone else) have to use that, if they don't want to? (The GPL is framed to guarantee certain freedoms to users; the BSD license grants complete freedom to those making products from the source, but does not protect users at all. I thought everyone had figured this out by now?)
you had me at #!
Re: the GPL, nothing written on debian-legal can change the fact that the GPL cannot be read to prohibit their requirement that redistributed products that use the GPL'd MySQL database must also be open source. MySQL's position is legally and morally in keeping with the spirit of the GPL: protecting users.
you had me at #!