Jim C. Nasby was quoted as saying:
> > Jim C. Nasby wrote:
> > > Of course one flip-side to all this is that if Oracle does attack us it
> > > actually lends credibility; it means they see PostgreSQL as a threat. At
> > > this point that could do more good for us than harm, depending on how
> > > exactly the attacked.
> >
> > Well, that was MySQL's reaction to it, but I think the harm far
> > outweighs the good for them. Its more like, "Oracle finds MySQL a
> > threat, what is MySQL going to do now!" We don't want that kind of
> > outcome. Also, there are ways of attacking that do not show Oracle as
> > an agreesor, like hiring PostgreSQL developers.
>
> Well, they effectively took a big chunk of MySQL's commercial technology
> away, something the'd have a harder time doing with PostgreSQL (unless
> we're violating patents).
--
Doesn't really matter if the legal issues are ultimately in one's favor, if one's erstwhile opponent has enough lawyer
time... even if you can survive the lengthy battle, it may well be a pyrrhic victory.
Not having specific assets to be tied up helps, but Oracle could then generate enough FUD it would hamper the use (and
spread)of PostgreSQL. Oracle would probably not do so directly but through some 3rd party (or parties).
OTH, has PostgreSQL cost Oracle enough, or does it threaten to cost enough, to make such a venture worthwhile? In the
shortrun it would generate a lot of unsympathetic press and some support for the project.
My $0.03 worth ... and now back to work.
Greg Williamson