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."

Not So Free Software

[cowboy76Spain]

I wonder why this is an issue. If someone wants to port its own software on a new platform, who should argue against it?

Re:And how is this different from...

[VJ42]

It's not, and that's why I'll probably continue using MySQL, google and Yahoo! (I live in the UK, so Cheney's not my problem). I'm used to using a MySQL\PHP\Apche development envionment, and it works. I'm not about to change over a petty dispute. However, that's not to say i won't change if there is a better development envionment out there. If there's somthing better that I can learn, pickup and go quickly I will, but only if it's better suited for the task.

mysql or postgres

[ajdlinux]

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 [debian.org].


-- Get free domain names [ezyrewards.com]

Re:Cash up front, thanks.

[tomhudson]

If you had bothered to read the Groklaw interview almost 2 weeks ago
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=200510112 11450706 [groklaw.net]
you would have found out that SCO paid mySQL.

Money taken from SCO is less money for their FUD machine.

It also gives people stuck on SCO a chance to migrate their stuff slowly to other platforms.

1. Move existing services to mySQl on SCO platform
2. replace SCO platform with *BSD or *Linux

So how is that a bad thing again?

Gosh

[dtfinch]

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.

Re:Not So Free Software

[Arker]

The only reason it's an issue is because web sites like this one are heavily infiltrated by astro-turfers that will try to make it an issue so their masters can then squeal about 'linux zealots.'

MySQL made a deal, they got paid money to support a platform. That the client, in this case, happens to be the litigiousbastards [sco.com] was sure to raise a few eyebrows, and did, but not much more than that. Business is business. I hope Mårten made sure their check cleared before he let anyone put in any hours on that project... *shrug*

Re:Stupidity

[venicebeach]

It seems that Forbes has been drumming this conflict up a bit [forbes.com].

Interesting Groklaw article [groklaw.net] about some fishy reporting on the issue by Forbes.

Decisions...

[Decameron81]

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.