Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 5:07 PM, David Wall <d.wall@computer.org> wrote:
>
>> > I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
>> > so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
>> > customes to install MySQL'.
>> >
>> Well, I'm not sure how they'd even know you were doing this, but as a
>> commercial company, I'd suggest you not follow that advice since the
>> code would not work without install MySQL. Yes, they could install PG
>> instead, and if they did, MySQL would have no problem. But if you use
>> MySQL, then clearly it's required and a commercial license would be
>> required (though perhaps at least you'd put the legal obligation on the
>> end customer).
>>
>
> Huh? I'm suggesting that you write your code to be
> database-independent such that it is the user's choice what DBMS he
> uses. That way you aren't 'requiring them to install MySQL'. MySQL
> cannot hold you liable if a customer chooses to use your closed source
> Java/JDBC app with their DBMS if you didn't require it.
>
>
Yes, that is MySQL's licensing angle. I have spoken numerous times to
MySQL staff about it. So what ended up happening for my software
development was it became a waste of time to support MySQL and
PostgreSQL, I moved to PostgreSQL solely which didn't have any of those
restrictions associated with it. Which is how I got into PostgreSQL in
the first place. And now I use MySQL when I have to because PostgreSQL
does the job for me and I'm used to writing SQL, plpgsql and the like
for it.
Russell Smith
