Rayme Jernigan wrote:
Ok, since we're already OT, or semi-OT I'll bite... maybe just a nibble. ;)That was in response to the idea that they hold it back a version. (I have not verified that). I did find the "have to register for the JDBC driver" to be a bit of an annoying feature.
You say the Derby Apache OS license is "lite?" I'm confused by this. Or perhaps it's having a separate supported commercial version you are uncomfortable with. Why?
Compare to MySQL. MySQL uses a dual-license strategy.... there is a GPL version, but also a commercial license that you must use for commercial products distribution. Don't get me wrong, I'm not criticizing MySQL, and MySQL and Derby do different things well. But if you want to resell your MySQL-based product to customers, you need to pay them a fee, no? Sometimes a very big fee. And I seem to recall if you want to do ACID-compliant transactions, row-locking, so on you also need InnoDB. Again, to resell you have to buy a license... more money.
I'm conflicted about MySQL's strategy. I've not made up my mind yet.
InnoDB is in the regular version you download. Its the InnoDB hot backup that is a proprietary product. (Yes I kind of think that is a "lite"ing strategy)
Not so with Derby... all of this is available for commercial distribution, without constraints of the need for additional licenses.
MySQL AG also maintains only *one code base* for MySQL server, and they run that code against a standard test suite. This is great, and smart IMHO. But my point... in view of their strategy, do you think MySQL is "lite"ing open source as well?
There in lies the difference, its the "one code base". With regards to the InnoDB Hot Backup -- kinda.
Yeah...I've been that too. I can pretty much bet my particular opinion set is unique to myself.... :-P
-Rayme.
P.S. By way of full disclosure, I have been an IBM consultant in the past. All opinions are my own.
-Andy
On Apr 4, 2005, at 12:27 PM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Personally, I think that the "lite"ing of open source is really not open source at all. It means> Cloudscape is the IBM supported version... if you care about > IBM support, you'd want this version. I believe they're doing it this > way do they can control what they need to support.
Probably so. That really just makes sense, and it seems to be a pretty standard model for companies looking to make money from code which is nominally "free." Release it to the world, let it develop as open-source, and then occassionally take a snap-shot of the code, do any clean-up / value-add stuff, and then release it as a commercial product. Of course the interesting thing is that anybody could do the exact same thing, even "Bob's Screen Door Repair and Relational Databases, LLC." So what IBM is really selling in a sense is their reputation (versus Bob, for example).
closed communities, seperate forks, its unteniable and results in something more resembling
"shared source". Plus its just damn confusing and makes for bad branding.
Of course this is my personal opinion only. -Andy
TTYL,
Phil
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [email protected] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [email protected] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org .
_______________________________________________ Juglist mailing list [email protected] http://trijug.org/mailman/listinfo/juglist_trijug.org
