Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Licensing

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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. :)


In response to

pgsql-advocacy by date

Next:From: Josh BerkusDate: 2005-03-11 16:26:49
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Patents: no position against ?
Previous:From: Jean-Paul ArgudoDate: 2005-03-11 09:31:34
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL and Patents: no position against ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group