TJ,
I will go back and study the PG backend API (its been a while since I
last looked at it) and get back to you. I was assuming rather than
stating that it didnt meet my needs. Do you have a link to its docs?
BDBs basic C API is what I am talking about and particularly the
abililty for fine grai
* Chad ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> course the product you own is called "MySQL". Do MySQL or any MySQL
> customers need a commercial license for BDB? I think not. MySQL does
> not as all its code is open source. As for MySQL customers, unless they
> are making direct API calls into BDB (which most
Quoth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Rick Gigger):
> Why doesn't mysql just forget the whole dual licensing of the server
> thing and just tell everyone to use the GPL versions of everything.
> Then dual license the client libraries which I would think they
> already own outright. I think this is what forces
Why doesn't mysql just forget the whole dual licensing of the server
thing and just tell everyone to use the GPL versions of everything.
Then dual license the client libraries which I would think they
already own outright. I think this is what forces most people to
need a commercial licen
"Chad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"What we need now is an open source DB with clean APIs into various
places in the software stack (eg we need a Berkeley DB kind of API
under the hood into something like Postgres) A full bells and whistles
relational DB with these low level ACCESS APIs will be a p
I am not concerned about Sleepycat revoking their open source license
for future versions of BDB. I am less concerned about them revoking
licenses for current and older releases. That would be impossible.
However this "deal" troubles me and I cant quite put my finger on why.
I'll try to tease it ou
