Skip to main content

Some good damage control from MySQL AB re SCOX

Pamela Jones interviews Marten Mickos from MySQL AB. The summary:

  • no money went to SCO from MySQL, so MySQL is not supporting SCO financially [hoorah!]
  • it was SCO seeking out the partnership, not the other way around [big surprise there, not]
  • MySQL had stopped supporting SCO in 2004 [see comment below]
  • MySQL did not put out the press release about the partnership. [good, but again no surprise] Mickos did provide a quotation for the press release however. [something you could hardly avoid]

This comment by Mike Kruckenberg in April 2004 (referenced in the GrokLaw article) is interesting:

SCO Unixware support is being stopped.

If anyone knows:

  • What about OpenServer?
  • What is the practical difference between “support” for SCOX OSes and “partnership”?

Call me inconsistent if you will, but stopping support for UnixWare (unless MySQL was running out of UW customers) is inconsistent with embracing a partnership with SCOX.

SCOX certainly haven’t changed, except that a few of their stupider claims have bounced off the Courts, crashing and burning before even coming to trial. And why stop support for UW but not OpenServer? Now OS uses what amounts to a UW kernel, so I suppose that the remaining differences are hardly radical, but if MySQL stopped support on moral grounds, why resume it again while the moral issue remains in full force? This confuses me.

Marten said:

I can tell you that the deal produces revenue to us.

And what do we do with revenue? We hire developers who produce GPL code.

Good. But the money is tainted. It’s almost akin to taking drug money to support a school. Likewise:

As a company, we do not have a position on other companies’ strategies.

Taken as a general comment devoid of context, fine, but Marten’s talking about a company he’s ”partnered” with. Quite a different kettle of fish. The “partnership” makes SCOX’s strategies MySQL AB’s problem. Pilate washing his hands? I think considerably more distancing is required than we’ve so far seen.

In summary, MySQL have scored some good points with me and I think improved their conceptual position, but there’s still some major stuff in there not making sense. We await further revelations with the usual ’bated breath.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An Open and Shut response to Darl McBride

Hi, Darl. I see you’re being dishonest again . It’d be really nice if you could shoot straight for a change, but I think Kerry’s Dad will be selling snowplows in Hell first. Three years ago, when I first joined The SCO Group, we focused the company on the area that was most profitable and provided the most benefit to customers, investors, resellers, developers and employees: UNIX No, you focused the company on suing people, which was most profitable to lawyers and provided some golden parachutes for your buddies. People thought we were crazy. They were right. But since SCO owns the UNIX operating system The SCO Group does not own UNIX® in any sense of the word. The Open Group owns the UNIX trademark, definition and other rights , The SCO Group does not. The SCO Group doesn’t even own the UnixWare® or OpenServer® code, the rights to those are held by Novell and TSG use them only by permission and under certain conditions — which they have violate...
5 comments
Read more

5x7 text dot-matrix in five minutes...

This is a fairly primitive toy I threw together today for a specific purpose, published in case it’s any use to others... feed it a list of words as command arguments, which it will then display as a 5x7 ASCII dotmatrix with ‘#’ as a dot & ‘_’ as a blank. /* * display text using a 5x7 bitmap font in ASCII letters */ static unsigned char font [] [5] = { { 0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00,0x00 }, // 0x20 32 { 0x00,0x00,0x6f,0x00,0x00 }, // ! 0x21 33 { 0x00,0x07,0x00,0x07,0x00 }, // " 0x22 34 { 0x14,0x7f,0x14,0x7f,0x14 }, // # 0x23 35 { 0x00,0x07,0x04,0x1e,0x00 }, // $ 0x24 36 { 0x23,0x13,0x08,0x64,0x62 }, // % 0x25 37 { 0x36,0x49,0x56,0x20,0x50 }, // & 0x26 38 { 0x00,0x00,0x07,0x00,0x00 }, // ' 0x27 39 { 0x00,0x1c,0x22,0x41,0x00 }, // ( 0x28 40 { 0x00,0x41,0x22,0x1c,0x00 }, // ) 0x29 41 { 0x14,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x14 }, // * 0x2a 42 { 0x08,0x08,0x3e,0x08,0x08 }, ...
5 comments
Read more

Citizens Augmenting Government Waste

So here we have Microsoft-funded “ Citizens Against Government Waste ” (CAGW) heavily criticising Massachusetts’s switch to an internationally accepted and open document standard (not open source, open standard — but I seem to remember a large monopolist who frequently confuses the two when it suits them). I remember CAGW, they were the organisation who had dead people writing in to support Microsoft in court a few years ago — thanks to sbergman27 for the link — is this “the dead hand of CAGW” at work again? Let’s follow the money and find out. Who stands to lose the most money and control if Massachusetts switches to an unencumbered document format? Big surprise, it’s CAGW sponsor Microsoft, through their dominant MS-Office suite. Why did CAGW list Microsoft’s suite last, after two other much-less-dominant examples which are waning anyway? If you’re inclined to wallow in additional irony, consider that at leas...
Post a Comment
Read more