>>>>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.

I do wonder how much support for free software is just giving them licenses for free,
milking ahem marketing that as sponsoring at list price.
You look great to the unknowing and add users to boast in blurbs with.

I wonder if/what benefit they see in eliminating client SQL via SQLite.
I am certain it was planned, still unsure if the reasons for that plan came from Radio Eriwan.

regards

thomas