-------------------------------------------------- From: "Jonathan Pryor" <[email protected]>
> I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "mention the MIT license." Poor wording, should have been "by including a copy of the MIT license". "PostgreSQL has a much simpler licensing scheme. It is released under the Berkley License, which allows for any use as long as a copy of the Berkley License is included with it. This means that you can release a commercial product that uses PostgreSQL or is a derivative of PostgreSQL without including source code. " > If neither of those is true, you _may_ have problems. In this scenario, neither would be true. > That said, PostgreSQL would ~always be a wiser choice ;-) Lets say this application would be sold for profit, and it used DbLinq and PostgreSQL as the backend. By including a copy of the MIT/BSD license from both, this commercial application would not need to be licensed under GPL, MIT or any other open source license. Source code could remain closed. I think that's the safer option, regardless of the merits of the databases, and the legality of use of MySQL. - Sami --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "DbLinq" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/dblinq?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
