From: | Martín Marqués <martin(at)bugs(dot)unl(dot)edu(dot)ar> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Cc: | felix(at)crowfix(dot)com, Andreas Kretschmer <akretschmer(at)spamfence(dot)net> |
Subject: | Re: Oracle buys Innobase |
Date: | 2005-10-08 21:49:45 |
Message-ID: | 200510081849.45507.martin@bugs.unl.edu.ar |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-general |
El Sáb 08 Oct 2005 18:11, felix(at)crowfix(dot)com escribió:
> On Sat, Oct 08, 2005 at 10:31:30AM -0500, Scott Marlowe wrote:
>
> > What it comes down to is this. MySQL is dual licensed. You can use
> > the GPL version, or the commercial version. In order to sell the
> > commercially licensed version, MySQL must have the rights to all the
> > code in their base. So, in order for MySQL to sell a commercail
> > version of MySQL with innodb support, they have to pay innobase a
> > bit to include it, or rip it out.
>
> I don't understand. If both MySQL and Innodb are GPL licensed,
> commercial or not should make no difference, and they can add all the
> GPL changes they want o the last Innodb GPL release.
>
> What am I missing?
They can't enforce a commercial licence over a GPL aplication.
--
select 'mmarques' || '@' || 'unl.edu.ar' AS email;
---------------------------------------------------------
Martín Marqués | Programador, DBA
Centro de Telemática | Administrador
Universidad Nacional
del Litoral
---------------------------------------------------------
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-08 21:56:57 | Re: Oracle buys Innobase |
Previous Message | felix | 2005-10-08 21:11:54 | Re: Oracle buys Innobase |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-10-08 21:56:57 | Re: Oracle buys Innobase |
Previous Message | David Fetter | 2005-10-08 21:22:23 | Re: Dump all except some tables? |