Quoth rick@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rick Gigger): > Why doesn't mysql just forget the whole dual licensing of the server > thing and just tell everyone to use the GPL versions of everything. > Then dual license the client libraries which I would think they > already own outright. I think this is what forces most people to > need a commercial license. Do most of their customers really need > to modify the server? Ah, but that would shoot their funding model in the head, and the Vulture Capital guys that invested ~$19M in them wouldn't be terribly happy about them throwing away the potential for profitability. > The other thing that most of their customers probably need is just a > support contract in case something goes wrong and to keep the bosses > happy. And that is not really something that oracle can interfere > with (unless they try to buy off all of their employees > individually). Yeah, but that's not the easy sale. The easy sale is... "If you are unsure, we recommend that you buy our cost effective commercial licenses. That is the safest solution." Which encourages people to pay their $595 per server per year. -- "cbbrowne","@","gmail.com" http://linuxfinances.info/info/slony.html It is interesting to note that before the advent of Microsoft Windows, `GPF' was better known for its usage in plumbing: "Gallons Per Flush" -- dedmonds@xxxxxxxxxx (Dean Edmonds)
