Dave Page wrote:
> >>> Also, looking back at the news just added today, is "EnterpriseDB
> >>> Postgres"
> >>> considered a "postgresql family product" or a commercial one? Maybe a
> >>> guidance bullet on "downstream distributions"?
> >>
> >> It's certainly not commercial, but yes that does seem worth clarifying.
> >
> > It depends on what you are meaning by "commercial". This is a common
> > problem amongst FOSS people. FOSS can be commercial. I would actually
> > argue that EnterpriseDB Postgres *is* commercial as it is backed and
> > supported by a *commercial* Enterprise.
> >
> > The real question is, "is it proprietary". If it is even partially
> > closed source then it really doesn't belong in the "postgresql family
> > product" unless we also include MPP and Replicator.
>
> You know what I mean :-). And all of EDB-Postgres is open source,
> including the funky little MySQL migrator tool in the latest builds.
Uh, doesn't the installer use a commercial product that isn't open
source? Does requiring non-open source tools to build something make it
non-open source? Postgres requires a C compiler that can be open or
closed source so I don't know if that helps clarify things.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://postgres.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +