>>>Yuck. Hope many Oracle/SQLServer licenses will be exchanged/saved by going NoSQL in backends
>>>as there is better/more natural support for such structures in browsers now.
>>
>>Interesting licensing for BerkleyDB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_DB#Licensing : "Give the world your source, or give us big $$". Sounds like Oracle, trying to encumber a new standard.
>
>As they invented SLeepycat license model from start on, this cannot be layed at Oracles doorstep.
>OTOH it might offer a hint to on how to get bought out by Larry:
>get open source for often used DB-product, enhance while changing license to a similar model,
>wait for $ to roll in - MySQL was only bought after a similar change... If you have ideas, contact me ;-))
>
>AFAIK this is not a grab from Oracle to get the source of WebApps, as I understand they gave FF commercial license for free.

Seems to me Oracle didn't exactly bend over backwards trying to provide an unencumbered DB for HTML5 ( whether BerkeleyDB or something else ). I don't know how infectious the Sleepycat license they inherited is, whether it's even possible to fork it into another license.

As for giving FF a free license, IMO that's the only thing that would make it at all palatable. And it still lets Oracle pick winners and losers to some extent.

>
>>>>Side issue, since you mentioned web-based being "noticeably slower than native apps": I wonder what is considered "fast enough", these days. Years ago I remember hearing that a response time of 2 seconds was considered "fast enough". It's probably faster today. After all, we have a civic duty to reduce car crashes etc. due to inappropriate apping/texting etc. :-/
>>>
>>>Target: 100ms, with outliers falling under 200ms that is for a "reactive app".
>>>Otherwise 1 sec to keep train of thought (or lowered attention span of today's kids).
>>>After 7-10 secs user will work on something else.
>>>Opinioated Source: Google in talks on optimizing GWT JAVA>>JS Compiler and Minifier
>>
>>I don't see how web apps could hope to reach 100ms, a round-trip on a fast, uncongested network has more than that in just latency, a real-world network might see longer latency than that on just one leg. So if you really need that kind of responsiveness, apps will be the only way to go, for the foreseeable future.
>
>If you cache often needed data inside a data store exclusively for that WebApp, for this data latency is not an issue
>or is reduced to checking the server timestamp is still valid. Not a side issue, directly on target ;-)
>
>regards
>
>thomas