> right, and my point was that, up until now, we've worked at making sure
> that the whole thing is self-contained ... as soon as we throw in a
> third-party piece of software that is *efffectively* our guts, we now
> throw in a new point of failure for the end users ... what happens if, a
> year down the road, SleepyCat decides that v4.0 falls undera new license
> that negates our ability to use it? we've just drop'd all our guts in
> favor of theirs and now what?
>
> I'm not saying that using some of SleepyCat's stuff for backend is a bad
> idea, but I'm saying that we shouldn't be relying on it ... add on, yes
> ... exclusive, no ...
We could get perpetual rights to the code as integrated into our code.
Also, if they change something, we could always take it as our own and
keep it working for us. I think we would need something like that.
It sort of goes to how open we are. Someone can always take PostgreSQL
and create a branch if we do a terrible job. We would need that
assurance of the Sleepycat DB.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026