Mysql version question

[Scot L. Harris]

On Wed, 2004-10-06 at 18:44, Lew Bloch wrote:
> "Scot L. Harris" averred:
> > I made the switch after reading 
> > all the licensing info on Mysql's site and all the posts involved.  It
> > seemed much safer than having to worry about getting a commercial
> > license from mysql for internal applications or ones that face
> > customers.  Did not need the hassle.  I have found postgresql to be very
> > good so far.  And there is no quibbling on the licensing of it.
> 
> What possible quibble could you have over the MySQL license?
> 

Like I said before, after reading the information published on their
site and a variety of discussions in various groups it was easier to
make the move to postgresql.  Technically both can do the job.  Each has
good points and each probably has problems in some areas.  The licensing
issue just tipped the scale enough.  It was not worth worrying about
licensing for an internal application which at one point it appeared
that Mysql wanted you to have a license for such applications.  It
became even murkier for customer facing web applications, some things I
read seemed to indicate you needed a license others indicated the
opposite.  Personally it was not worth the hassle to sort out when it
was needed and when it was not.  And since there was a perfectly
acceptable alternative in postgresql I decided to use it instead. 


-- 
Scot L. Harris
webid at cfl.rr.com

There's no easy quick way out, we're gonna have to live through our
whole lives, win, lose, or draw.
		-- Walt Kelly