(no subject)

[Jeffrey Creem]

>
> Another plus about Postgres is that it's a true OSS project.  I don't
> mean to slam MySQL, but there's been an awful lot of questionable buzz
> about MySQL's licensing changes lately (such as "client libraries are
> GPL'd unless you want to pay for a non-GPL version").  I don't -think-
> it'd be a problem if you're using PHP for application delivery (because
> MySQL makes a lot of concessions to PHP [including a rumor that their
> stored procedure language scheduled for release 5.0 will use PHP
> syntax]), but the company is finally leveraging its investment in
> developing an open source database.  So, on the one hand, MySQL has
> looming licensing concerns but also the benefit of both open-source
> development and company support, so it might be attractive to a PHB.
> Whereas Postgres is wholly open source, client libraries are open
> source but not GPL, but there's no company standing behind the project
> either AFAIK.  (Though there are companies that will sell support for
> it.)


Not to start a flame war here but MySQL is certainly not doing anything
questionable here.
It is licensed under the GPL. So is Linux. So are a lot of other things.
Now, in addition to
the GPL license they have a license that allows you to do proprietary
development.  Sure the muddle
the waters a little by using words like commercial development license...
but read the terms..It is very clear
that this is simple a dual license for a GPL version and a proprietary
version.

Either one could be used for commercial development.
Either one could be used to make a database for aunt tilly.

But, if you are willing to have your application be licensed under the terms
of the GPL you
do not need to buy a license. (of course IANAL)  Note that the GPL does NOT
require you to make your source
code available for everyone. It does require you to provide your source code
to everyone
you provide your application to AND it means that you can not place
restrictions on who they
give it to.

If your product is good and your support is good, you can still make money.
Plenty of companies do. Not sure
how developers (and I am not saying  you are doing this) can bash people
like microsoft for being closed source, want to make use of someone elses
open source work, and then not want to allow their work to be open source.

For a specific example, we use a compiler at work where the cost for the
cross compiler is about $25k for 5 supported seats (and annual maintenance
after that...not sure how much).. It is a GPL compiler but we are happy
(ok...not happy..willing) to pay for it because the vendor continues to
provide value by providing excellent support and continuous product
improvements.