Re: Justifying a PG over MySQL approach to a project

On Mon, Dec 21, 2009 at 10:55 AM, Erik Jones <ejones(at)engineyard(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 21, 2009, at 8:44 AM, Scott Ribe wrote:
>
>> Well, the fact that Monty secretly tried to persuade the EC toward forcing
>> Oracle to release MySQL under a license other than the GPL, while lying &
>> denying that in public, really shouldn't be considered a plus for MySQL, I
>> would think ;-)
>>
>> Seriously, founder & current owner engaged in political intrigue over
>> licensing? Try running that by a risk-averse manager!
>
> I was literally just discussing this situation with our other DBA at work.  Monty, who *chose* the GPL for the open source end of their inane dual-licensing scheme, and Stallman, who *wrote* the damn thing, are trying to get the EU to force Oracle to change the open source end of the license to something more permissive, arguing that the viral nature of the GPL will force companies that release proprietary products that use MySQL to buy commercial licenses from Oracle which is exacly why they (MySQL AB) set things up in that manner when Monty owned the company.  It seems to me that Monty & co. wanted to have their cake and eat it too and are now crying because Oracle wants to buy the recipe.
>
> If you're company releases any kind of proprietary software then that situation alone sounds like a good business reason to me not to be looking at MySQL right now.

Even more impressive is that if you go to Monty's blog and post that
statement, he will moderate it away and no one will see it there. He
refuses to answer those questions are discuss the fact that he has
secretly requested that Oracle be forced to change the license on
mysql if they buy it.

He puts forth his points like he wants a public dialog, but he most
certainly does not.