On Tue, 10 Feb 2004, Claudio Cicali wrote: > Jan Wieck wrote: > > > Claudio Cicali wrote: > >> > >> This is *WRONG*. > >> > >> MySQL is *free*, but is double-licensed. > >> > >> Please refer to this page for further details. > >> http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing.html > >> > > > > Did you even bother to look at that page yourself? It clearly says > > Yes, I did. > > > exactly what I said up there. If your code is available free of change > > as open source, then and only then, you and the users of your code are > > free from license fees. In any other case you have to buy or keep your > > stuff for yourself. Special restrictions apply to any changes you might > > want to make to it, and so on and so forth. > > (quite) Right. Free of charge and Open Source are not, technically, > synonims. License fees are another story. I'm confused. The message in question used the word "free" along with qualifications for closed source and last time I checked the word free did not implicitly mean free software especially when combined with a qualification for closed source. I mean, I'm not the best English speaker/writer in the world, but I'd thought the word was in common usage before the advent of computers. ;) ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
