Is there a FAQ that explains the differences between PostgreSQL, MySQL,
Oracle, and MS-Access?

Thanks for your direction.

--
Brian P. Giroux

Noel <no.spam (AT) thank (DOT) you> wrote in news:k67rf09idkomuvsftptarl42he1k4c88jq@
4ax.com:

MySQL is commercial? On their website < http://www.mysql.com/ > they say
"The world's most popular open source database", and they say they are GPL,
and they are on SourceForge. Is there another MySQL, or are only some
modules of it GPL?

--
Brian P. Giroux

A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, "Brian P. Giroux" <bpg (AT) onlink (DOT) net> wrote:
On their web site, they do NOT advertise "MySQL(tm) being free" as one of
its "advantages."

They indicate its "advantages" being thus:

MySQL offers several key advantages:

* Reliability and Performance
* Ease of Use and Deployment
* Freedom from Platform Lock-in
* Cross-Platform Support
* Millions of Trained and Certified Developers

And they quite clearly indicate that it is NOT "free" software.

<http://www.mysql.com/products/licensing/>

"If you distribute a proprietary application in any way, and you are
not licensing and distributing your source code under GPL, you need to
purchase a commercial license of MySQL"

There is evidently some sort of danger involved if you don't buy
licenses from the vendor, otherwise their statement that
"That is the safest solution."
wouldn't make sense.

Their intent is evidently for the GPL form of it to provide some form
of "try before you buy" scheme.

"Nevertheless, you can test MySQL under the GPL license and inspect
the source code before you purchase a commercial non-GPL license."

There is no question but that it is a commercial product; the vendor
presents that position with eminent vigor.
--
let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;;
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/unix.html
Nothing takes the taste out of peanut butter quite like unrequited
love. -- Charlie Brown [Charles Schultz]

"Brian P. Giroux" <bpg (AT) onlink (DOT) net> wrote

MySQL is dual-licensed, so it's open source as well as commercial.

--
Pascal

Christopher Browne <cbbrowne (AT) acm (DOT) org> writes:

I don't disagree with you, but want to point somethign out. One problem
with the text of this page is that is propagates a misconception about
the GPL:

The Commercial License, which allows you to provide commercial software
licenses to your customers or distribute MySQL-based applications within
your organization. This is for organizations that do not want to release
the source code for their applications as open source / free software;
in other words they do not want to comply with the GNU General Public
License (GPL). For more detail on the Commercial non-GPL License, click
here. Or, if you want more information on pricing, click here.

"Distributing" derived works within an organization does not violate the
GPL. The GPL does not tell you how widely to distribute derived works;
it merely keeps you from placing additional restrictions on whatever
recipients you choose to distribute to.

I put "distributing" in quotes, because I'm not convinced that within an
organization is considered distribution under any country's copyright
law.

Oops! Bruce Lewis <brlspam (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> was seen spray-painting on a wall:
There is _definitely_ ambiguity to that; while the FSF's understanding
of distribution would fit with your reading, the license on Sleepycat
DB (one of the DBM variations) actually specifically contemplates that
if there is more than one physical site, that IS to be treated as
distribution.

And what would cause MySQL AB to sic their lawyers on people could be
an entirely third item...
--
If this was helpful, <http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=cbbrowne> rate me
http://www.ntlug.org/~cbbrowne/finances.html
"So, does this mean goodbye to the "Bluescreen of Death" and hello to
the "Bluescreen of Holy Vengeance?"" -- Observed on Slashdot after
hearing Al Qaeda terrorists may have hacked on Windows XP...