On 11/6/05, mos wrote: > > Sure but if people have commercial applications that use InnoDb, then what? > Is there a surprise "tax" waiting for them next year?
Nothing changes for the licenses you already have. If you have an application that is both incompatible with the GPL and depends on InnoDB and you want to buy new licenses you might find them more expensive or unavailable. > If Oracle is that much in favor of continuing the InnoDb contract with > MySQL, why didn't they pre-announce it saying the terms and conditions > would be the same as before. Or are they going to change the contract so > they collect $500 or even $1000 extra for every commercial application that > is distributed with InnoDb? > > If this happens, what alternative will MySQL be offering their users who > need transactions and RI? An upgrade to PostgreSQL? Even if Oracle wants to shut that down and buys RedHat, Fujitsu, NTT, EnterpiseDB, Pervasive etc., it is still BSD licensed :) Nothing has changed. You had a single-vendor solution where the vendor could do with their prices what it wanted to do. You have a single-vendor solution where the vendor can do with their prices what it needs to do. > It's a lot like seeing a neighboring army surround your oil fields and then > hear them say, "No cause for alarm! We're here to help you improve your > pumping efficiencies!". You just have to wonder how sincere are they? > Should I trust Larry Ellison with the deed to my house? I can't help but smile by the thought of Larry Ellison becoming an Open Source convert who does not want to license InnoDB to MySQL at all but just releases the next version as GPL-only. If you buy a share you can go ask him himself during the next shareholder event :) Jochem
