postgre vs MySQL

[Leif Biberg Kristensen]

On Friday 14. March 2008, Adrian Klaver wrote:

> Years ago I played around with MySQL because that
> was what "everybody" was using. The problem was it did not do what I
> wanted and Postgres did.

That pretty much sums up my experiences too. Back in 2002 when I started
fooling around with databases, there wasn't much of a competition, and
I used MySQL as 'everybody else' did. But when I reached the point
where issues like data integrity started to matter, I was advised to
try PostgreSQL. I did, and haven't looked back. That was in 2005, and
PostgreSQL was at version 7.4 something.

There are several reasons why MySQL have a lot more users than
PostgreSQL, and in more than one way the parallel to Microsoft vs. *nix
is striking. In the software world, getting a mediocre product on the
market early may often be the key to success, and is commonly referred
to as the "Worse Is Better" principle.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worse_is_better>

Besides, a lot of database users don't really care for the database
itself. Notably the object/relational mapping (ORM) camp, like Ruby On
Rails, Django, and Catalyst, will consider the DBMS as a dumb storage
engine. With that attitude, combined with the fact that most ORM
frameworks are written mainly for MySQL, it's no wonder that PostgreSQL
doesn't make many inroads here.
--
Leif Biberg Kristensen | Registered Linux User #338009
http://solumslekt.org/ | Cruising with Gentoo/KDE
My Jazz Jukebox: http://www.last.fm/user/leifbk/

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Ivan Sergio Borgonovo]

On Fri, 14 Mar 2008 10:28:37 +0100
Magnus Hagander <magnus@...> wrote:

> > I still find impressing that Google uses MySQL... I can guess why,

> What makes you so sure Google don't use PostgreSQL *as well*?

I'm not sure... in fact I never excluded they could use pg for other
stuff... They may use it for collecting payment, counting # of
ads/click trough etc...

> (hint: we don't force them to tell you about it...)

So... MySQL forced Google to tell everyone?

I think the field of application is pretty different.
I'm speculating...
They should have a "narrow" task, they shouldn't be interested in
coherency/integrity... just on HA etc...

Still I'd be curious to know if people can scale pg to several
hundreds(?) machines without loosing the features that differentiate
it from other DB...


--
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo
http://www.webthatworks.it


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Paul Boddie]

On 14 Mar, 09:26, jojap...@... ("jose javier parra sanchez")
wrote:
> >  itself open source, you have to pay to get a license.  Pay for GPL software?
>
> You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
> GPL is a 'Usage License'.  If i write GPL software to my clients,
> should i give it free of charge ?. That's absurd.

Yes, it's nice to see the standard licensing rumours spread around
completely unconstrained by inconvenient things like the facts. Of
course you can charge people for GPL-licensed software, but you have
to promise to let them have the source code at no additional cost. And
the mere existence of your GPL-licensed software doesn't mean that you
are obliged to give random inquirers the source code: it's only if
you've already distributed the software to people that they have the
right to the source.

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney

As for things like contributor agreements, that has nothing to do with
the licence and whether a product is Free Software or not: it's a
copyright thing; various permissively licensed projects have
contributor agreements, too. Naturally, the MySQL corporate entity
want people to assign copyright to them so that they can then offer
the code under a proprietary licence, but there would be nothing to
stop you from just forking MySQL and offering it as a purely GPL-
licensed product.

And with respect to the MySQL corporate policy on using their product
in proprietary software, I believe that the reason why the client
libraries are GPL-licensed is precisely because nobody bought their
case for insisting that merely using the database system from a
program creates a GPL-licensed derived work consisting of MySQL and
the program. By linking to the client libraries, however, you are
creating a GPL-licensed derived work in a situation that the FSF would
actually go along with. The recent tendency of differentiation between
the "commercial" and "open source" editions would also indicate that
people aren't really believing the MySQL corporate spin, either.
Here's an example of the smoke and mirrors:

http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?4,31,888#msg-888

In some businesses with a dual-licensing model, I think it can be the
case that some people in sales/marketing/licensing like to make claims
that wouldn't stand up to thorough scrutiny, but where customers
probably aren't going to risk making a fuss if the licensing costs are
relatively low. Really, the MySQL people would have more credibility
if they just charged for support and bug-fixing and/or used something
like the Affero GPLv3 instead of the vanilla GPL, rather than trying
to ride two quite different horses.

Paul

P.S. It's not that I use MySQL, being happy with PostgreSQL, but
people should at least try and understand the licensing issues
involved.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[alvherre]

Gurjeet Singh escribió:

> I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres'
> lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I haven't bothered
> even downloading and installing it even once!!!

I have downloaded the source at different periods of time.  The first
time it was horrid -- they had done a port to Novell recently and had
stuffed it with weird macros that made it really unreadable.  Oh, and
the naming convention for source files was awful.

The second time, the macros weren't there (but then, perhaps I looked at
a different part of the source).  But it was pretty much undocumented --
and the naming convention doesn't help.

My guess is that it's written in such a way that you need some sort of
roadmap or external file (missing from the GPL source) that makes it
hard to understand it.  Or perhaps they preprocess a different
repository in order to create an obfuscated GPL source tree.


(I have a memory of comments in the source that looked like it referred
to some internal knowledge base or bug tracking system.  But frankly it
is a dim memory and could very well be related to the PHP source or
MaxDB rather than MySQL.)

--
Alvaro Herrera                 http://www.amazon.com/gp/registry/DXLWNGRJD34J
Management by consensus: I have decided; you concede.
(Leonard Liu)

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Erik Jones]

On Mar 14, 2008, at 7:22 AM, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo wrote:

> Still I'd be curious to know if people can scale pg to several
> hundreds(?) machines without loosing the features that differentiate
> it from other DB...

Jan Weick wrote Slony which was released by Affilias who runs the top-
level registries for the .info and .org domains (ref: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2007-12/msg01421.php)
.  I'd imagine those are some pretty serious set-ups.

Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
erik@...
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com




--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Erik Jones]

On Mar 14, 2008, at 3:26 AM, jose javier parra sanchez wrote:

>> itself open source, you have to pay to get a license.  Pay for GPL  
>> software?
>
> You cannot be serious, GPL has no relation with monetary value. The
> GPL is a 'Usage License'.  If i write GPL software to my clients,
> should i give it free of charge ?. That's absurd.

They've gotten around that by making MySQL "dual-licensed".  If you're  
going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you can not  
use the GPL'd version, you have to use their paid, commercial license.

Erik Jones

DBA | Emma®
erik@...
800.595.4401 or 615.292.5888
615.292.0777 (fax)

Emma helps organizations everywhere communicate & market in style.
Visit us online at http://www.myemma.com




--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Tom Lane-2]

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@...> writes:
> Gurjeet Singh escribió:
>> I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in Postgres'
>> lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I haven't bothered
>> even downloading and installing it even once!!!

> I have downloaded the source at different periods of time.

In connection with my Red Hat duties I've had to look at it occasionally
:-(.  They definitely have a lower standard for commenting than we do.
I sure hope that there is unpublished documentation somewhere ... though
their spectacularly bad track record on the 5.0 and 5.1 release series
makes one wonder.  Maybe the problem is exactly that they have too many
engineers who don't understand their own code very well.

> Or perhaps they preprocess a different
> repository in order to create an obfuscated GPL source tree.

No, the parts of their devel process that are visible (such as the bk
commit archives) don't suggest any such thing.  It's just ugly code.

I'm not sure we should be throwing too many stones, though.  It takes
a long time to wrap your brain around the PG source code, too.

                        regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Craig Ringer]

Erik Jones wrote:
>
> They've gotten around that by making MySQL "dual-licensed".  If you're
> going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you can not
> use the GPL'd version, you have to use their paid, commercial license.
>
My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are GPL,
so you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop you
using their ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application (especially
if you support other ODBC databases as well). The server can't be
bundled in your application, but you can still get the user to install
it and use it with your application.

Why go to all that fuss, though, when you can just use a database with a
more friendly license? For embedding there's SQLite, Firebird, etc, and
for standalone work there's PostgreSQL. You'd contribute any changes or
patches back to the database developers anyway, after all - if not by
way of thanks and the desire to contribute then at least because it's
not worth the hassle of maintaining them out-of-tree - so I don't think
the DB teams would gain much from the GPL anyway.

Speaking of which, thanks to everybody who's worked on PostgreSQL- it's
magic, and it's made my latest project at work a lot easier. I keep on
finding myself thinking "I wish I could do <something>" only to find out
that it's been implemented in the next version. For example, now EXECUTE
... INTO has been implemented for 8.3 . It's turning into a seriously
impressive database.

--
Craig Ringer

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[paul rivers-2]

Tom Lane wrote:
> In connection with my Red Hat duties I've had to look at it occasionally
> :-(.  They definitely have a lower standard for commenting than we do.
> I sure hope that there is unpublished documentation somewhere ...

And cut into the very lucrative "figuring out the MySQL source code"
book market??  No way.  There have been at least 3 books out in the last
year or so on just that topic.

Paul

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Sam Mason]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 03:17:27PM +0530, Gurjeet Singh wrote:

> On Thu, Mar 13, 2008 at 6:06 PM, rrahul <rahul.rathi@...> wrote:
> > Thanks to all you wonderful people out their. I don't know if its
> > your love for Postgres or nepothism that makes it look far superior
> > than mysql.
>
> I wouldn't comment on that, but having read so much about MySQL in
> Postgres' lists, I sure have a disliking for MySQL, so much so that I
> haven't bothered even downloading and installing it even once!!!
>
> Does anyone know of threads in MySQL lists/forums where they run a
> propaganda against Postgres or if they downplay us? That would be an
> interesting read!

Indeed that would.  This thread is adding a lot, of what I think is
known as "confirmation bias", to my personal preference of PG over
MySQL.  It gives me a warm fuzzy feeling that I can't be too wrong with
my choice, but it also increases my dogmatism.

I'm wondering how interesting it would be to put a smallish survey
together to see if we can tease things apart.  The wording of questions
would be fun.  Questions like "how important is security to you" seem
somewhat pointless as they're open to *a lot* of interpretation[1] and
almost everyone will pick "very".  A couple of multiple-choice questions
I've been able to think of are:

  1.a. most people interact with this database directly (i.e. they
       write SQL)
    b. the developers interact with the database directly, but the
       users don't
    c. neither developers or users interact with the database directly

  2.a. the database should stop invalid data from being entered as
       quickly as possible, aborting transactions immediately
    b. the database should do it's best to interpret my data in a
       valid way, only aborting transactions when necessary

The second seems very biased, but I've not been able to think of
a better way of describing it.  I think it could be quite a good
description of what most users actually want though!

I think the hypothesis would be something along the lines of comparing
developer and project requirements with the choice of database
implementation.  Comments?  I was thinking of sending it to other FOSS
database mailing lists as I'm not sure how to contact commercial DBs'
users.  I'm sure that lots of people use both, but the sample will be
biased.


  Sam

 [1] http://www.eros-os.org/pipermail/cap-talk/2007-December/009460.html

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Steve Crawford]

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>
>
> You can use CLUSTER reliably only from 7.2 upwards.  (Or was it 7.3?  I
> forget).  In earlier versions it would lose information about other
> indexes (i.e. those not being clustered on), foreign keys, inheritance,
> etc; in other words pretty much a disaster except for the simplest of
> tables.
Interesting historical note, but fortunately largely irrelevant these days.

>   Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
> it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
> transactions.
>
>  
More interesting. I may have a broken mental-model. I *thought* that
CLUSTER acquired exclusive locks and that acquisition of the exclusive
lock would imply that there couldn't be any transactions accessing that
table. Where is my misunderstanding?

> Of course, the main problem with CLUSTER is that it needs about 2x the
> disk space of table + indexes.
>  
Again checking my mental model. My understanding is that CLUSTER
basically recreates the tables and indexes and then swaps the new ones
in place of the originals. So ~2x is true for typical tables. But for
tables badly bloated by multiple bulk updates or bad vacuum practices
CLUSTER should require far less than 2x.

Cheers,
Steve


--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Csaba Nagy]

On Fri, 2008-03-14 at 08:43 -0700, Steve Crawford wrote:
> >   Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
> > it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
> > transactions.
> >
> >  
> More interesting. I may have a broken mental-model. I *thought* that
> CLUSTER acquired exclusive locks and that acquisition of the exclusive
> lock would imply that there couldn't be any transactions accessing that
> table. Where is my misunderstanding?

Here's a scenario:

 - transaction A starts to read table A;
 - transaction B starts, deletes some records from table B, end ends;
 - transaction C starts and clusters table B;
 - transaction A finished reading table A, and now tries to read the
records just deleted by transaction B;

Question: under MVCC rules should transaction A see the deleted records
or not ?

Unfortunately I don't know for sure the answer, but if it is yes, then
bad luck for transaction A, because cluster just ate them. And the
locking will not help this...

Cheers,
Csaba.



--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Thomas Harold]

Leif B. Kristensen wrote:

> On Friday 14. March 2008, Adrian Klaver wrote:
>
>> Years ago I played around with MySQL because that
>> was what "everybody" was using. The problem was it did not do what I
>> wanted and Postgres did.
>
> That pretty much sums up my experiences too. Back in 2002 when I started
> fooling around with databases, there wasn't much of a competition, and
> I used MySQL as 'everybody else' did. But when I reached the point
> where issues like data integrity started to matter, I was advised to
> try PostgreSQL. I did, and haven't looked back. That was in 2005, and
> PostgreSQL was at version 7.4 something.

Our issue back then (early part of this decade) was that PostgreSQL
didn't run easily on top of MS Windows and I didn't yet have any Linux
boxes that I could run it on.  It wasn't until 8.0 that we finally
started playing with pgsql in earnest.  We also now have Linux servers
installed, which makes things easier on a lot of fronts.

(We'll be migrating our small MySQL install over to postgresql this
year.  The public site is still based on MS SQL and hosts a few dozen GB
worth of data, but we have plans to migrate that to pgsql as well once
we have more experience with it.)

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Alvaro Herrera-7]

Steve Crawford escribió:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:

>>   Also, it is MVCC-safe only from 8.3 upwards; on older versions
>> it (incorrectly) deletes dead tuples that are still visible to old
>> transactions.
>
> More interesting. I may have a broken mental-model. I *thought* that  
> CLUSTER acquired exclusive locks and that acquisition of the exclusive  
> lock would imply that there couldn't be any transactions accessing that  
> table. Where is my misunderstanding?

In that a transaction may have started _before_ the CLUSTER, yet not
grabbed any locks on the table yet.  CLUSTER completes, releases the
lock, and your old transaction visits the table only to find that the
tuples it needs are no longer there.  (In fact IIRC what happens is that
the transaction finds the table empty).

>> Of course, the main problem with CLUSTER is that it needs about 2x the
>> disk space of table + indexes.
>>  
> Again checking my mental model. My understanding is that CLUSTER  
> basically recreates the tables and indexes and then swaps the new ones  
> in place of the originals. So ~2x is true for typical tables. But for  
> tables badly bloated by multiple bulk updates or bad vacuum practices  
> CLUSTER should require far less than 2x.

Yeah, that would seem to be correct -- you only need space enough for
live tuples.

--
Alvaro Herrera                                http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[David Wall]

My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are GPL, so you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop you using their ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application (especially if you support other ODBC databases as well). The server can't be bundled in your application, but you can still get the user to install it and use it with your application.

According to the MySQL license info ( http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/commercial-license.html ):

When your application is not licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by OSI, and you intend to or you may distribute MySQL software, you must first obtain a commercial license to the MySQL product.

Typical examples of MySQL distribution include:

• Selling software that includes MySQL to customers who install the software on their own machines.

• Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves on their own machines.

• Building a hardware system that includes MySQL and selling that hardware system to customers for installation at their own locations.

It sure sounds like if your application uses MySQL and you sell your software (I presume this would include online services that charge for use of the site and that site runs MySQL under the hood), you have to buy a commercial license, and you can't get around it just by not directly distributing MySQL and having your customer install it separately.

Way off topic for PG, though, which has a great OSS license in BSD.

David

[Dave Page-7]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 4:34 PM, David Wall <d.wall@...> wrote:

>
>
>
> My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are GPL, so
> you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop you using their
> ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application (especially if you support
> other ODBC databases as well). The server can't be bundled in your
> application, but you can still get the user to install it and use it with
> your application.
>  According to the MySQL license info (
> http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/commercial-license.html ):
>
>
> When your application is not licensed under either the GPL-compatible Free
> Software License as defined by the Free Software Foundation or approved by
> OSI, and you intend to or you may distribute MySQL software, you must first
> obtain a commercial license to the MySQL product.
>
> Typical examples of MySQL distribution include:
>
>
>
> Selling software that includes MySQL to customers who install the software
> on their own machines.
>
>
> Selling software that requires customers to install MySQL themselves on
> their own machines.
>
>
> Building a hardware system that includes MySQL and selling that hardware
> system to customers for installation at their own locations.
>
>  It sure sounds like if your application uses MySQL and you sell your
> software (I presume this would include online services that charge for use
> of the site and that site runs MySQL under the hood), you have to buy a
> commercial license, and you can't get around it just by not directly
> distributing MySQL and having your customer install it separately.

I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
customes to install MySQL'.

As for the hardware one, well, that just confirms everything I
previously thought about MySQL that is unrepeatable where minors may
be reading.


--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK Ltd: http://www.enterprisedb.com
PostgreSQL UK 2008 Conference: http://www.postgresql.org.uk

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[David Wall]

> I imagine you can get round the second one by building your software
> so it supports PostgreSQL as well - that way you don't 'require
> customes to install MySQL'.
>  
Well, I'm not sure how they'd even know you were doing this, but as a
commercial company, I'd suggest you not follow that advice since the
code would not work without install MySQL.  Yes, they could install PG
instead, and if they did, MySQL would have no problem.  But if you use
MySQL, then clearly it's required and a commercial license would be
required (though perhaps at least you'd put the legal obligation on the
end customer).  Of course, all of this is based on reading their high
level stuff, not the actual legal document that may be tighter or looser.

That fact that there's so much confusion and so many instances in which
commercial licenses would be required that I say they are only open
source in self-branding, not reality.

David

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Tom Lane-2]

Steve Crawford <scrawford@...> writes:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> Of course, the main problem with CLUSTER is that it needs about 2x the
>> disk space of table + indexes.
>>
> Again checking my mental model. My understanding is that CLUSTER
> basically recreates the tables and indexes and then swaps the new ones
> in place of the originals. So ~2x is true for typical tables. But for
> tables badly bloated by multiple bulk updates or bad vacuum practices
> CLUSTER should require far less than 2x.

Another point to keep in mind is that creation of a new btree index
(and, soon, a new hash index) involves a temporary sort file that's
roughly the size of the index.  So the peak transient space demand is
size of compacted table + size of compacted indexes + size of largest
index, more or less.  (I suppose it'd depend on the order in which
the indexes get rebuilt.)

                        regards, tom lane

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Chris Browne]

craig@... (Craig Ringer) writes:

> Erik Jones wrote:
>> They've gotten around that by making MySQL "dual-licensed".  If
>> you're going to be using MySQL in a commercial application then you
>> can not use the GPL'd version, you have to use their paid,
>> commercial license.
>>
> My understanding is that's not quite true. The client libraries are
> GPL, so you can't use them directly, but I don't see what would stop
> you using their ODBC/JDBC drivers with your non-GPL application
> (especially if you support other ODBC databases as well). The server
> can't be bundled in your application, but you can still get the user
> to install it and use it with your application.

Well, there's a certain amount of distance between "expectations" and
"legal requirements," and lots of room for weasel wording...

<http://forums.mysql.com/read.php?4,31,888#msg-888>
<http://www.mysql.com/about/legal/licensing/>

According to the above things that MySQL AB has said/continues to say,
it is quite clear that the owners of the code *intend* that
"commercial users" should pay them a licensing fee,
--
(format nil "~S@~S" "cbbrowne" "cbbrowne.com")
http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html
"Blessed are those who backup daily; for they shall be restored."
-- Seen in .signature of Veritas rep

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general

[Scott Marlowe-2]

On Fri, Mar 14, 2008 at 10:34 AM, David Wall <d.wall@...> wrote:

>  It sure sounds like if your application uses MySQL and you sell your
> software (I presume this would include online services that charge for use
> of the site and that site runs MySQL under the hood), you have to buy a
> commercial license, and you can't get around it just by not directly
> distributing MySQL and having your customer install it separately.

No, selling services that rely on mysql is not the same as selling
software that relies on mysql.  It's only when you sell or distrubute
software that you have to worry about the GPL.

--
Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@...)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general