Ihor Radchenko <yanta...@posteo.net> writes: > Tim Cross <theophil...@gmail.com> writes: > >> 3. There is no requirement to install non-free software to use >> ob-sql.el. The software is fully functional using a free RDMS like >> postgres. > > Yes, but there is requirement to install in order to use ob-sql.el > __with :engine set to non-free option__. > > So, I can envision that someone who decided to use ob-sql.el and > considering between free and non-free engine may prefer non-free one. Of > course, it is not very strong argument, but the boundaries are fuzzy in > this area. >
in the same way someone could choose to run emacs on MS Windows. This doesn't mean emacs encourages people to use MS Windows. Rather it means that people who are restricted to MS Windows can at least use a free editor on that platform. In a similar manner, people who are restricted to working with a non-free database can access it using free software. I think this is particularly relevant given the growth in large databases where users are unable to use a free database or run it locally simply because of the size of the data and the resource requirements and administrative complexity involved. >> For maintenance reasons and to add session support, I would suggest that >> using sql.el instead of re-inventing this wheel would be a better >> outcome. I've used sql.el for years and it works extremely well and I >> don't htink it would be too hard to integrate into ob-sql. > > Sure. That's what we usually do - just use whatever REPL is available > for a given ob-* language. Just a question of someone sending a patch.
