On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 13:22:14 -0600
Scott Marlowe <scott.marlowe@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:27 PM, Ivan Sergio
> Borgonovo<mail@webthatworks.it> wrote:
> > On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 19:39:16 +0200
> > "Massa, Harald Armin" <chef@ghum.de> wrote:
> >
> >> a quite interesting read.
> >>
> >> http://www.codingthewheel.com/archives/stranger-than-fiction-story-online-poker-tracker-postgresql
> >
> > There are a couple of comments comment that maybe someone could
> > correct:
> >
> > "The popularity of PostgreSQL as DBMS for handhistories is by no
> > means just a matter of some alleged technological superiority
> > over MySQL. Let's not forget that Pokertracker, Holdem Manager
> > etc is proprietary software, so they really don't have any other
> > choice but to bundle with postgreSQL. If they were to ship their
> > products with MySQL, they would either have to open-source their
> > products according to the GPL, or pay hefty commercial license
> > fees."
> >
> > or
> >
> > "Bogdan's comment is right on the money. There are licensing
> > issues with MySQL. MySQL commercial licenses are contracts with
> > Sun. Not cheap. It had to be PostgreSQL."
> >
> > I understand the license differences (and for my taste I prefer
> > GPL over BSD) but the above affirmations seems to imply pg
> > couldn't stand up just on its technical merits.
> >
> > I don't think this is the case.
> Exactly, it could have been interbase / firebird, sqllite,
> berkelydb, and a couple other choices that are free. MySQL's
> licensing just took them out of the running right at the start.
You can actually build up closed source software with MySQL as a
server, it depends on how you do it.
Aren't there any DB with LGPL library license?
Still the above statement sounds too much as: pg wasn't chosen for
it's technical merits but for the license.
I don't think their only option was pg for licensing reasons.
Or am I misunderstanding what you wrote? or... am I plainly wrong?
--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it
