From: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
Cc: | Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>, Mark Woodward <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, "Jim C(dot) Nasby" <jnasby(at)pervasive(dot)com>, John DeSoi <desoi(at)pgedit(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
Date: | 2006-05-19 16:22:25 |
Message-ID: | 446DF0C1.3070200@dunslane.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy 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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2006-05-19 16:25:44 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2006-05-19 16:15:38 | Re: [OT] MySQL is bad, but THIS bad? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-19 16:24:36 | Re: PL/pgSQL 'i = i + 1' Syntax |
Previous Message | Jim C. Nasby | 2006-05-19 16:20:48 | Re: text_position worst case runtime |