| From: | Florian Weimer <fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org, Cornelia Boenigk <poppcorn(at)cornelia-boenigk(dot)de> |
| Subject: | Re: Oracle buying Sleepycat, JBoss, and |
| Date: | 2006-02-12 22:09:54 |
| Message-ID: | 87pslsb559.fsf@mid.deneb.enyo.de |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy |
* Marc G. Fournier:
> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006, Florian Weimer wrote:
>
>> Curiously, the risk for MySQL here is not that Oracle becomes an
>> Open Source company, but that they license InnoDB and Berkeley DB
>> under open source licenses only (which would be a heavy blow to
>> other Sleepycat customers as well, by the way).
>
> Now *that* is a possibility that I hadn't thought of ... so you are
> suggesting that Oracle's direction might be to remove the Dual-License
> in favor of a purely OSS license for those technologies?
If I were a MySQL customer who needed the dual-license option, I would
be very concerned about this possibility, especially since two
backends in a row have been hit.
> So, for instance, InnoDB would still be available, but *only* to
> those that haven't licensed a copy of MySQL? I like that one ... :)
I think you mean "available only under the terms of the GPL", and
"licensed a copy of MySQL under terms different from the GPL". 8-)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Florian Weimer | 2006-02-12 22:21:47 | Re: Oracle buying Sleepycat, JBoss, and |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-02-12 20:37:10 | Re: [HACKERS] PGUpgrade WAS: Audio interview |