Dave Page wrote:
On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Wall <d.wall@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
> so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
> customes to install MySQL'.
>
Well, I'm not sure how they'd even know you were doing this, but as a
commercial company, I'd suggest you not follow that advice since the
code would not work without install MySQL. Yes, they could install PG
instead, and if they did, MySQL would have no problem. But if you use
MySQL, then clearly it's required and a commercial license would be
required (though perhaps at least you'd put the legal obligation on the
end customer).
Huh? I'm suggesting that you write your code to be
database-independent such that it is the user's choice what DBMS he
uses. That way you aren't 'requiring them to install MySQL'. MySQL
cannot hold you liable if a customer chooses to use your closed source
Java/JDBC app with their DBMS if you didn't require it.
Yes, that is MySQL's licensing angle. I have spoken numerous times to
MySQL staff about it. So what ended up happening for my software
development was it became a waste of time to support MySQL and
PostgreSQL, I moved to PostgreSQL solely which didn't have any of those
restrictions associated with it. Which is how I got into PostgreSQL in
the first place. And now I use MySQL when I have to because PostgreSQL
does the job for me and I'm used to writing SQL, plpgsql and the like
for it.
Russell Smith
--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
