Still, whatever the reason for the switch (is Oracle involved?), this seems like a good new default.
I've found Postgres capable, fast, and rock-solid. (At the point I switched from MySQL, a few years ago, I'd be tempted to say that it had approximately none of those three going for it. I'll be happy to hear that MySQL has improved meanwhile, though: is there any particular reason I might consider switching back?).
"For OEMs, ISVs, and VARs who distribute MySQL with their products, and do not license and distribute their source code under the GPL, MySQL provides a flexible OEM Commercial License."
Given as that's pretty much the only way they can make money, it's obvious they would choose that interpretation (which would be hard to defend in court, BTW).
An interpretation of that clause would be that Apple either has to release Mac OS X under the GPL, or get that commercial license (I haven't checked, but it probably isn't free).
I do not think the GPL license implies that, and as another poster said, that interpretation would probably not hold in court, but why take the risk?
Also, shipping this in the past does not imply they were happy doing that. They might have found the alternatives not good enough before, just like they did with gcc/clang (I am not sure gcc is completely out yet, but it certainly is on the way out)
They would obviously not have to release OS X under the GPL, but they could be forced to release the applications using the client libraries. On the other hand, this has been true for years; this policy was created by MySQL AB, even before Sun bought them.
Perhaps Apple is interested in publishing some software linked against the client libraries.
The MySQL client libraries are GPL, which is very restrictive for a client library. I think that even the commercial vendors' licenses for client libraries are less restrictive.
Whatever are you talking about? We've been using PostgreSQL in production for 5+ years now, and it's been capable, very fast, and rock-solid all along. I've been using PostgreSQL in other projects for over a decade and it's had all 3 along the way, although speed has constantly improved.
I'm all for cheerleading for PostgreSQL (I really love the tool), but that "a few years ago" comment is just wrong and not really very fair.
Wouldn't be surprised if the Oracle issue is involved: they are after all also not bundling Java (which is required on first boot (rumor?) but by lots of software in any case). I can imagine they don't want to mess with possible lawsuits or licensing fees in the future with the path Oracle is on.
I installed Lion a few days ago, and Java is not installed. The first time I typed java (or javac) on the command line, it asked if I wanted it installed - it was then automatic, I just had to wait a few mintes.
Still, whatever the reason for the switch (is Oracle involved?), this seems like a good new default.
I've found Postgres capable, fast, and rock-solid. (At the point I switched from MySQL, a few years ago, I'd be tempted to say that it had approximately none of those three going for it. I'll be happy to hear that MySQL has improved meanwhile, though: is there any particular reason I might consider switching back?).