| From: | Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> |
| Cc: | "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>, DaveGauthier <dave(dot)gauthier(at)intel(dot)com> |
| Subject: | Re: Why facebook used mysql ? |
| Date: | 2010-11-09 18:01:03 |
| Message-ID: | AANLkTimrUAhmNLiP6DQ2TYWwmrjvCDHyN8qDS+5Ox9x+@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Nov 9, 2010 at 5:45 PM, Andy <angelflow(at)yahoo(dot)com> wrote:
> Not true.
>
> As a condition of getting European Commission's approval of its acquisition of Sun/MySQL, Oracle had to agree to continue the GPL release.
>
> And there are non-Oracle upgrades from Google, facebook, Percona, etc. So no one is beholden to Oracle.
It is true. The EU commitments are entirely independent of the licencing.
Also note that the commitments
(http://www.oracle.com/us/corporate/press/042364) are pretty loosely
worded. For example, Oracle would be fulfilling them if they released
a new Enterprise version with 1000 new features, and a corresponding
community version with just one of those features.
And after 5 years (nearer to 4 now I guess), those commitments get
thrown away entirely.
--
Dave Page
Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com
Twitter: @pgsnake
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2010-11-09 18:03:47 | Re: Why facebook used mysql ? |
| Previous Message | David Boreham | 2010-11-09 17:57:00 | Re: Why facebook used mysql ? |