MySQL enters Unix pact with SCO

The SCO Group, which launched a high-profile attack against Linux, has signed a partnership with open-source database seller MySQL, the companies said Friday. SCO and MySQL will 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. The version will be available by the end of the year.

SCO, whose lawyers once derided the General Public License (GPL) as unconstitutional in the company's legal attack on Linux, has nonetheless distributed several open-source programs covered by the GPL. MySQL is released as an open-source project under that license.

[Earl Benser]

Curious....

... I thought SCO has self-destructred long ago. Too bad it didn't.

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Collapse takes time

Think of it as a slow-motion implosion. The funny thing is that SCO has chosen this path to it's inevitable destruction and yet has to live in the real world at the same time so they end up making this deal with MySQL despite it's very real open-source underpinnings. It's to laugh.

[Orion Blastar]

Are you living in a cave?

Microsoft invested a lot in SCO to keep it going, so they can run lawsuits against Linux, which is a rival to Microsoft Windows.

Perhaps you forgot that SCO Unix was once called Xenix and Microsoft made it, and then sold the IP and source code to SCO? SCO then bought, what it thought was the IP and source code to Unix from Novell, but forgot to read the fine-print of the contract and Novell kept the patent rights, etc.

Microsoft makes sure that SCO does not go under, and that it continues its legal assault on Linux, Linux companies, Linux users, etc. After all, hardly anyone is buying SCO products, if Microsoft didn't pump money into them, they'd be out of business faster than a Dotcom company. Apparently their business plan is to earn billions in revenue via lawsuits against Linux companies and Linux users being forced to pay those high fees.

Someone at SCO finally decided that GPL is not that bad, so they made a deal with MySQL, to actually offer a product that people might actually buy. They only did this, because the Linux lawsuit idea was not paying off, and they have to keep the shareholders happy.

[t8]

The funny this is...

The funny this is that Microsoft's money may end up in Novell's pocket if they win their court case against SCO. Novell say that SCO should have paid them a percentage of profits earned from UNIX, as they are the supposed Patent holders.

That would be a laugh if that happens. It seems that whatever you do against Linux comes back to bite you in the butt. If you ignore it it grows. If you attack it, it enourages growth.

Long Live Linux, the

[aabcdefghij987654321]

Not so sure

I think it's more likely MS gave that money to SCO because they felt that SCO might get a court to award a lot more than that. It's a cinch that MS's money has helped fund the lawsuits but MS fed them that money at the same time they were paying off a lot of other companies to avoid additional lawsuits because they just found out how hard it was going to be to defend themselves in any court.

[t8]

Warning keep away from SCO

SCO tried to sue 2 of their old customers because they got wise and used Linux instead.
The moral of the story is: If you become a SCO customer, then you may be sued if you jump over to Linux later on.

The wise thing is to just keep away from them in the first place. They haven't tried to sue anyone who started with Linux. SCO is undemocratic because they use fear to try and keep you away from Linux and free choice. So why go with SCO in the first place? There is not one good reason to do so, unless of course you like living dangerously.

You are safer with Linux to begin with and you have free choice which no one can take away.

[t8]

SCO

Sueing Customers Office
Source Code Org
Saying Code (is) Ours

[Sentinel]

Isn't MySQL worried?

Isn't MySQL worried of the damage to their reputation by colaborating with SCO, the most talked-about enemy of open source? If I ran a site powered by MySQL, I wouldn't change my infrastructure sue to this, but there are some people who would. Collaborating with SCO is a risky move for the open source database. What benefit they expect to obtain from this deal is beyond me. I should believe the SCO developer community is small, given the company's financial troubles and declining business, so a joint effort between MySQL and them is bound to be a big waste of time. If SCO wants open source database, they should do the port to their OS themselves. Some might even call MySQL "sellouts".