Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andrew Dunstan
Subject Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?
Date
Msg-id 446DF0C1.3070200@dunslane.net
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad?  ("Joshua D. Drake" <jd@commandprompt.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
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?


http://www.openssl.org/support/faq.html#LEGAL2

Of course, on that reasoning, they would need to provide a similar 
exception for libpq with or without openssl. More and more I love the 
fact that we don't play these games.

cheers

andrew


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: [ADMIN] does wal archiving block the current client connection?
Next
From: "Jim C. Nasby"
Date:
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax