Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date: 2006-05-19 16:32:17
Message-ID: 446DF311.50900@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 18, 2006 at 02:58:11PM -0400, Mark Woodward wrote:
>>>> The reality is that MySQL is widely supported by some very, shall we say,
>>>> "interesting" open source projects and using these products with
>>>> PostgreSQL would be a plus.
>>> The biggest headache I find with using postgres is that various GPL
>>> licenced programs have trouble directly shipping postgresql support
>>> because of our use of OpenSSL. Each and every one of those program
>>> needs to add an exception to their licence for distributors to
>>> distribute postgresql support.
>> Why would that be the case... OpenSSL and PostgreSQL both are BSD
>> licensed... Am I missing something?
>
> Advertising clause. PostgreSQL doesn't have it, OpenSSL does.
>
Is that the same clause that caused the XFree86/X.Org fork?

J

--

=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/

In response to

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Mike Ellsworth 2006-05-19 16:42:49 Re: [HACKERS] Toward A Positive Marketing Approach.
Previous Message Rod Taylor 2006-05-19 16:25:44 Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jeff Frost 2006-05-19 16:32:42 Re: does wal archiving block the current client connection?
Previous Message Simon Riggs 2006-05-19 16:27:33 Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection?