Jeff Davis wrote:
>
>> The only real downside is that I could see MySQL developing a
>> FirebirdSQL table handler if too much pressure is put on them. This
>> might actually work OK since Firebird has an embeddable engine. If
>> they do this then Oracle might end up with basically the personnel
>> from the Innobase acquisition and very little else. Of course MySQL
>> has progressed to the point where larger license fees might not
>> alienate too many customers.
>>
>
> Does the FirebirdSQL license allow MySQL AB to embed firebird and then
> sell it commercially? Does any one entity own the copyright to
> FirebirdSQL so that they could dual license it to MySQL AB?
Yes. It is a modified Mozilla Public License which allows for embedding
in proprietary applications. However, it is LGPL-like in that they have
to provide the source code of the Firebird component and any
modifications... They do *not* have to relicense all of MySQL to use
it. The copyright is owned by the community.
>
> If not, what's the advantage to MySQL using FirebirdSQL as opposed to,
> say, PostgreSQL?
I assume you mean if they are allowed to use it. PostgreSQL really is
not designed to be embedded in applications. Firebird has that
possibility... You do have some issues. Last I checked there was no
equivalent to the text datatype, but that was with 1.0, and they are up
to 1.5 now (Firebird seems to have no comprehensive documentation on
their site).
>
> And as someone mentioned in a related comment, what does MySQL bring
> to the table? Everyone would know that MySQL DB was really just
> FirebirdSQL with a different frontend. The PR would be devestating to
> MySQL AB. Not quite as bad as if they used PostgreSQL, but still bad.
So their options would be?
Best Wishes,
Chris Travers