Subject Re: [Firebird-general] Greg Sabino Mullane: Postgres is not for sale
Author Ilia Dulgerov
It seems I can not buy PostgreSQL but I can buy based
on PostgreSQL , some reference Linux Magazine's Top 20 Companies to Watch in
2008 <ttp://>http://www

On Jan 20, 2008 10:41 PM, mariuz <mapopa@...> wrote:

> Firebird is not for sale
> Sent to you by mariuz via Google Reader: Greg Sabino Mullane: Postgres
> is not for sale via ::Planet PostgreSQL:: on 1/20/08
> In light of the recent MySQL sellout, I'd like to once again answer the
> question that pops up occasionally: "Who will purchase Postgres?" Sure,
> it brings a smile to those of us immersed in the open source world, but
> it bears a serious answer: Postgres cannot be bought. While from a
> distance, MySQL and PostgreSQL look the same ("open-source databases"),
> they are very different beasts, both in technical and non-technical
> ways. In a nutshell, the difference can be expressed as:
> MySQL is an open-source PRODUCT.
> Postgres is an open-source PROJECT.
> Only two letters of difference between 'product' and 'project', but a
> very important distinction. MySQL is run by a for-profit corporation
> (MySQL AB), which owns the code, employs practically all the
> developers, dictates what direction the software goes in, and has the
> right to change (indeed, has changed) the licensing terms for use of
> the software (and documentation).
> By contrast, Postgres is not owned by any one company, is controlled by
> the community, has no licensing issues, and has its main developers
> spread across a wide spectrum of companies, both public and private.
> Can a software product succeed using such a system? Well, the other
> letters in the original LAMP (Linux, Apache, and Perl) have similar
> models, and they seem to be doing just fine. Like Postgres, there is no
> way to "buy" any of those project either.
> I'm not sure yet what to make of the buyout. It's hard to see if this
> will be good or bad for Postgres (the product of the project), or if it
> will be good or bad for MySQL (the product). It is probably bad for the
> MySQL project, at least as far as I think the MySQL employees and
> community would have preferred the once-promised IPO option. It
> certainly would have garnered them more publicity and visibility in the
> long-term. In the short-term, the product will inevitably slow down a
> little bit as the company gets absorbed into Sun (not to mention
> getting a production-ready Falcon). In the long term it will may
> probably be a plus for the product. The only clear winner so far is the
> venture capitalists and the executives, who probably didn't think too
> long or hard about the $800 million in cash offer .
> Will Sun continue to support Postgres? They claim they are going to do
> so, although it's not as if they currently make large contributions to
> Postgres, in terms of developer percentage or cash contributions.
> Companies wishing to support Postgres can not only hire developers, but
> they can donate to SPI (Software in the Public Interest, a 501(c)(3)
> non-profit organization). So if Sun doesn't want to demonstrate their
> continued support of Postgres by paying me $1 million dollars to write
> some really awesome code, they could always donate the money to SPI.
> Things you can do from here:
> - Subscribe to ::Planet PostgreSQL:: using Google Reader
> - Get started using Google Reader to easily keep up with all your
> favorite sites
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]