| From: | Dawid Kuroczko <qnex42(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | James Tillman <JamesTillman(at)sevatechnologies(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Licensing |
| Date: | 2005-03-11 10:12:24 |
| Message-ID: | 758d5e7f05031102121dfd092f@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
On Thu, 10 Mar 2005 10:01:47 -0500, James Tillman
<JamesTillman(at)sevatechnologies(dot)com> wrote:
> I just wanted to say thanks to all who responded to my question regarding
> licensing.
>
> Although I'm fairly certain that it would be legal for my client to use
> MySQL in the manner we intended, despite what the sales rep said, the client
> doesn't like ambiguity, so we'll likely be going with PostgresQL, unless
> Oracle cuts them a nice deal! (Client is heavily into Oracle).
If so, you would be much happier with PostgreSQL than MySQL.
IMHO PostgreSQL is much closer to Oracle than MySQL when it
comes to SQL. Things like transactions, views, procedural languages,
referential integrity, triggers, etc. are either not done yet, in beta
stage or rarely used. :)
Regards,
Dawid
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-03-11 16:26:49 | Re: PostgreSQL and Patents: no position against ? |
| Previous Message | Jean-Paul Argudo | 2005-03-11 09:31:34 | Re: PostgreSQL and Patents: no position against ? |