Hi, > Why support MySQL over postgresql when MySQL is tied to Oracle and its > potential licensing issues? Already Oracle is adding features that were > originally going to be in the release as for pay only. It would be much > better to go with a community owned dbms imho.
MySQL is GPL with an OSI-approved waiver for non GPL'ed but open source projects, so I don't see an issue with our continued use of it. To be honest, I don't care much, I'm just much more familiar with MySQL and their management tools. If there were strong opposition on the grounds that the proposal has MySQL in it then we could change it. The goal isn't to eradicate support for Postgres, but to push the burden for that support onto people who are willing to offer it, and limit the amount of testing we need to do for each release. (I think it's pretty unreasonable that we're not testing fully on both mysql and postgres given that we're suggesting either could be used, so lets just say that support for postgres is there but maintained by the community and not part of our regular QA process. Otherwise I think we need to maintain QA platforms for both mysql and postgres, which is a pain and not fruitful with the resources we have.) Chris _______________________________________________ Matterhorn mailing list [email protected] http://lists.opencastproject.org/mailman/listinfo/matterhorn To unsubscribe please email [email protected] _______________________________________________
