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."

Supping?

[Eightyford]

Supping? As in to take food and especially liquid food into the mouth a little at a time - Websters

Okay...

Re:Not eating with the devil? I believe it.

[SpaceLifeForm]

If you spell Darl properly, you get more results [google.com].

Re:Not So Free Software

[eh2o]

I'd rather see MySQL AB get their money than Boies and associates.

I can see it now.

[stuttering stan]

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.

Re:Not So Free Software

[einhverfr]

Paranoid? Yes, but this is SCO and all the people they sued so far were Openserver customers switching to Linux.

My favorite claim they made was when they claimed that Daimler Crysler did not adequately provide a list of systems running their software, and that the response of "we haven't used your software in seven years" did not qualify as a list.

Fortunately the judge was not amused by the level of creativity in this interpretation and promptly threw out most of the SCO v. DCC suit (she left the possibility that SCO could sue DCC for not responding in a timely fashion to their inquiry, but the rest was thrown out).