Thread: Re: [GENERAL] Oracle buys Innobase

> The only real downside is that I could see MySQL developing a
> FirebirdSQL table handler if too much pressure is put on them.  This
> might actually work OK since Firebird has an embeddable engine.  If they
> do this then Oracle might end up with basically the personnel from the
> Innobase acquisition and very little else.  Of course MySQL has
> progressed to the point where larger license fees might not alienate too
> many customers.
>

Does the FirebirdSQL license allow MySQL AB to embed firebird and then
sell it commercially? Does any one entity own the copyright to
FirebirdSQL so that they could dual license it to MySQL AB?

If not, what's the advantage to MySQL using FirebirdSQL as opposed to,
say, PostgreSQL?

And as someone mentioned in a related comment, what does MySQL bring to
the table? Everyone would know that MySQL DB was really just FirebirdSQL
with a different frontend. The PR would be devestating to MySQL AB. Not
quite as bad as if they used PostgreSQL, but still bad.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

El Dom 16 Oct 2005 13:48, Jeff Davis escribió:
>
> If not, what's the advantage to MySQL using FirebirdSQL as opposed to,
> say, PostgreSQL?

I think it's stupid to even think about an emmbedded PostgreSQL in MySQL. The
advantage of using InnoDB emmbeded in MySQL is that the former doesn't,
AFAIK, an SQL languaje. So Innodb gives transaction and RI, and MySQL gives
an SQL languaje.

Now, what would MySQL give PostgreSQL?

--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués          |   Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática    |     Administrador
               Universidad Nacional
                    del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------

>>
>> And as someone mentioned in a related comment, what does MySQL bring
>> to the table? Everyone would know that MySQL DB was really just
>> FirebirdSQL with a different frontend. The PR would be devestating to
>> MySQL AB. Not quite as bad as if they used PostgreSQL, but still bad.
>
>
> So their options would be?
>

Good question. I'm sure MySQL AB would like to know. That's why MySQL DB
users are so worried.

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

Martín Marqués wrote:
> El Dom 16 Oct 2005 13:48, Jeff Davis escribió:
>
>>If not, what's the advantage to MySQL using FirebirdSQL as opposed to,
>>say, PostgreSQL?
>
>
> I think it's stupid to even think about an emmbedded PostgreSQL in MySQL. The
> advantage of using InnoDB emmbeded in MySQL is that the former doesn't,
> AFAIK, an SQL languaje. So Innodb gives transaction and RI, and MySQL gives
> an SQL languaje.
>
> Now, what would MySQL give PostgreSQL?
>

That was my point. FirebirdSQL already provides the SQL language, so
what does MySQL offer that FirebirdSQL doesn't?

Regards,
    Jeff Davis

Jeff Davis wrote:

>
>> The only real downside is that I could see MySQL developing a
>> FirebirdSQL table handler if too much pressure is put on them.  This
>> might actually work OK since Firebird has an embeddable engine.  If
>> they do this then Oracle might end up with basically the personnel
>> from the Innobase acquisition and very little else.  Of course MySQL
>> has progressed to the point where larger license fees might not
>> alienate too many customers.
>>
>
> Does the FirebirdSQL license allow MySQL AB to embed firebird and then
> sell it commercially? Does any one entity own the copyright to
> FirebirdSQL so that they could dual license it to MySQL AB?

Yes.  It is a modified Mozilla Public License which allows for embedding
in proprietary applications.  However, it is LGPL-like in that they have
to provide the source code of the Firebird component and any
modifications...  They do *not* have to relicense all of MySQL to use
it.  The copyright is owned by the community.

>
> If not, what's the advantage to MySQL using FirebirdSQL as opposed to,
> say, PostgreSQL?

I assume you mean if they are allowed to use it.  PostgreSQL really is
not designed to be embedded in applications.  Firebird has that
possibility...  You do have some issues.  Last I checked there was no
equivalent to the text datatype, but that was with 1.0, and they are up
to 1.5 now (Firebird seems to have no comprehensive documentation on
their site).

>
> And as someone mentioned in a related comment, what does MySQL bring
> to the table? Everyone would know that MySQL DB was really just
> FirebirdSQL with a different frontend. The PR would be devestating to
> MySQL AB. Not quite as bad as if they used PostgreSQL, but still bad.

So their options would be?

Best Wishes,
Chris Travers

On Sun, Oct 16, 2005 at 04:35:23PM -0700, Jeff Davis wrote:
> That was my point. FirebirdSQL already provides the SQL language, so
> what does MySQL offer that FirebirdSQL doesn't?

Why, compatibility with MySQL's dialect of SQL, of course.  Who else
can accept '2005-02-30' as a date?  ;-)

A

--
Andrew Sullivan  | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
The fact that technology doesn't work is no bar to success in the marketplace.
        --Philip Greenspun