I've been following the Creative Commons build-up for a while and am glad to see it finally launched. I would like to help and/or collaborate if you feel that would be productive.
I listened to a presentation Lawrence Lessig gave at SXSW earlier this year and was motivated to action.
I've removed the copyright notice from all of my pages and replaced it with an invitation for people to use the content for whatever commercial or creative use they want.
For many years I've maintained a website where I have recipes, stories and thousands of photos. In the past many people have asked to use some of these and I've allowed it with the provision that they include a copyright notice and a link to me. People have stolen some of my designs and I've gotten very upset and threatened to sue.
But hearing your speech made me start to wonder why. What is the point of me stressing out over control of these things? I don't ever intend to make money from them. Why not open them to people who can find a creative use?
So I have.
Already people are grabbing the images and using them for some cool things. A film maker intends to use them in his work, websites are using them for banners. I am very happy. Here's a link to my page where we're discussing this:
I'm rather surprised at how tightly some people's idea of "art" is linked to copyright and control. I always thought art was creativity.
I'm very interested in using the "contributor application" and seeing how well it matches up with the licences I've been using. One thing I did see missing from the licences they show (Attribution, Noncommercial, etc) was an explicitly public domain licence.
Most of my photos actually fall into this category. I just want people to use them, even if I don't attribution. Of course this seems like a bit of a non-licence, but it would be nice to have something specifically stating that. I constantly get email indicating that a) people don't understand what public domain means, and b) they don't believe I really mean it.
At any rate, I want to thank Creative Commons for their work and inspiration.
Don't pick the cow. The cow is totally freakin stupid. Not only do you have to spend all of your time slapping it, but it spends all of it's time doing especially stupid stuff.
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at villager [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at food [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at tree [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and eats it [slap slap slap]
Stop pulling up the freakin bushes! [slap slap slap]
"forcing more annoying ads down the throats of non-willing viewers"
What do you mean non-willing? No one is forcing you to look at this stuff. If you really think it's so bad then find some other source for information.
Personally I like using the Internet to get information. If I have a choice between 1) paying a subscription and not seeing ads, 2) seeing ads but paying nothing, or 3) just living without, I'll take option 2 any day. But everyone is free to take option 3. I just don't want to be *forced* to use option 1.
"First, companies are not trying to give you something for free. They are trying to make money."
Well duh. But if they can make money by advertising and still give me articles and news for free then great.
Here's my point - I prefer free.
There's a nifty independent newspaper here in San Diego that is free. You can pick it up all over town and not pay a cent. It has interesting articles and very handy listings for local events. IT'S FREE! But it also has *tons* of ads. No problem I just flip past. The paper seems to be doing just fine.
I would have no problem with an Internet site that worked that way. In fact it might even be better that way. People wouldn't put up with annoying ads unless the content of the site was worth the trouble.
I support the ad model that will allow me to view all of this information, at any time of the day or night, from anywhere I can log in, COMPLETELY FOR FREE!
I don't understand what the problem is with banner ads. Even full page ones, even ones that make me click to continue. As long as it makes the access to the information free I think it's a decent tradeoff.
Let me get this straight. Companies all over the world are struggling to find a way to give you *free* information and you're whining that the ads are badly targeted or "inconvenient."
Think about it this way: If we have e-voting the people who run the servers can decide who gets to be president. I mean sure, security measures are suppose to prevent that, but hey.......
From the article I got this vision of someone pushing the "go button" and then having the entire sail unravel inside of a small lab filled with engineers.
"AAaAGGHHH! Not that button!" - As they're all tangled in foil and squashed against the ceiling. - "Real cool Yuri. Now help me get this folded back up before they come...... Oh. Hi. No problem. Just testing. We'll get this fixed. Everyone grab a corner."
Having worked for several folded dot coms and one that made it big, I can assure you that the problem *does* lie with a failure to consider things like a business plan, revenue models, profit......
When I would point out the "plan" was just a bunch of hot air I would get either blank stares or be told flat out that market cap was what mattered, not profit or revenue. Year after year I was flabbergasted at the comic business models that would get VC.
Of course since they were paying me big bucks it didn't seem prudent to quit in disgust. Maybe I was part of the problem. [shrug]
The one dot com that did have a plan was a fantastic success. The owner retired with 160 million in his pocket. I was a short timer and only cashed in for 50K, but one of my friends got 250K after doing tech support for 2 years.
My current employer is doing fine. I'm making lots of money. From where I sit the Internet is doing quite well.
You seem to be saying that Microsoft is too big to sue. I reject that idea. The case against Microsoft is sound (IMHO). Lots of people seem to think so. Lots of lawyers seem to think so. Lots of companies Microsoft peed on seem to think so.
"IBM was on it's way out" I missed the press release about their impending collapse. Could I get some documentation on that? Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I just don't understand how you can justify not suing companies that are too big. It's hard and expensive, so we shouldn't do it?
I think one of the things Bush could do to overcome the lack of a popular mandate would be to get people all worked up over knee-jerk issues such as online pornography, hacking and copyright issues.
This worked well for McCarthy and Nixon. And even Dubya's dad with the Gulf war. Give people something to hate and they'll forgive your weaknesses.
I don't trust the bastard. Especially since his first actions as president have basically been a slap in the face to the moderates who got him elected.
You had a couple good points there and then suddenly became troll-like. Whatever.....
Here's the way I see it, if someone produces some interesting art it would be nice if I could toss them some coin in return. It makes me feel good and it encourages them to make more cool art.
But if I get the art for free I miss out on that warm, fuzzy feeling. And I certainly don't feel warm and fuzzy if I buy it at Amazon.
Freeware is nice, but rewarding people who do cool things is nicer.
I disagree. We just need to wait for the case law to catch up with the medium.
If you directly tell a telemarketer to remove your information and not contact you again, they have to comply or your have legal recourse. They can be fined.
eBay is a big company. Enough PO'd users could equal a class action law suit. And it's even easier with spam. You have a paper trail. If you set your preferences and they set them back..... Seems like a slam dunk law suit. Provided the case law catches up.......
If it isn't a spoof I have to think that whoever came up with this stupid idea will be fired rather quickly. Let's give them a chance to denounce this.
The first time I read this I just assumed it was a spoof. Can we even verify that this is genuine? It's so ludicrous that I can't believe the company, any company, would stand behind it.
I admit companies will play very fast and loose with the rules to get their message into my in-box, but the wording here sounds like it's almost trying to incite a riot.
"Many of your Notification Preference defaults were set to "no" rather than to "yes", which means that unlike other eBay members, you're not receiving these types of communications."
This is just stupid. It's got to be a spoof. "We feel you made an error when you asked us not to send this email."
This seems to be the opinion of EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO SEES IT!!! Watch as several million people make a weird face and say, "What???!!"
I suggest we (no, I don't know who 'we' is) shitcan this stupidity and start over. This is seven steps backward.
I personally own several novelty domain names and I wouldn't mind owning more just for the fun factor. But none of these are even interesting.
And I suppose I'm going to have to race to get jon.sullivan.name even though it looks retarded. If I don't grab it ASAP I'll lose out to one of the other 10,000 Jon Sullivans out their. Great solution. This really helps.
New headline "ICANN takes a dump on common sense."
So what DID you like about the movie? I saw it, and I'm really wondering. It was poop. And I even agree with you that movies can be enjoyed even if they're filled with "Slashdot errors".
But the reviewer is dead on with this review. The movie is filled with moments that just made me confused. Every five minutes one of the characters would do something completely out of context.
And the bad science wouldn't be an issue if the movie wasn't taking the science so seriously. One of the themes of the movie is hard science. The writer seems to be trying to impress us with hard science. But the science is awful! All of it.
Everything that happens is either physically impossible or contextually implausible.
I don't think someone who has the ability to scan through the walls of your house for these things will be interested in stealing TVs.
And if you're worried about your privacy, I don't see how they are able to collect any information with this that they aren't already collecting with bar codes.
And of course one of the selling points is that it makes it easier for stores to track stolen items. Do you consider that a bad thing?
I'm not a lawyer, but the primer indicates that similarity in the spelling isn't the deciding factor:
Obviously these factors must be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, the issue is not whether the marks themselves would be confused for each other, but rather whether the use of a similar mark will cause consumers to confuse the source of the goods or services as being that of the senior mark owner
Since the only way Mattel customers would ever know about mattl.com would be to spell it wrong it the address bar or a search, I don't see how anyone could EVER be confused.
The thing I like best isn't playing the games, but the idea that these things aren't just dropping off the face of the earth when their medium/platform becomes outdated. I hope this is a trend.
And nice of Midway to let it happen. Now if we can just bring the music industry into the 21st century. Three cheers for embracing new technology.
You see that this puts you way out of step with most REAL science fiction readers. In fact, so much so that you should probably not make your opinion about this series public.
It's your right, and I don't have a problem with it, but dude..... It's a classic. It can still be found in any bookstore with a sci fi section. So many people have read this and found it powerful that it has taken on a palpable mystique. It's like saying you don't like apple pie. Everyone likes apple pie. And that's the way it should be. Same with Dune.
1) The story was riveting and very original. 2) The characters were some of the most interesting I've come across. 3) The whole thing was addictive.
Why do you think he kept writing sequels? Because he was bored? No, it was because people kept buying and reading them.
ASP is good for really small projects, but trying to do something involved with it is so frustrating. I always feel like chewing my arm off to escape after a few hours of coding.
No way to escape quotes in a string??? Are you kidding me? You constantly run into places where common programming tactics are impossible.
Try the same things with Perl or PHP and it's straight forward. As it should be. ASP is Romper Room stuff.
It goes beyond that. If a client tells me that they really need zero chance of data lose, I'm going to assume that all the other aspects of the project are more critical than your average business site.
Where I pound keys, if I tell the client they'll need to a few grand more to have this type of integrity, they'd go somewhere else. MySQL is adequate for 90% of the sites out there. It's cheaper to buy (free), but it's also cheaper to develop.
Jon Sullivan
It "cuts it" more than Oracle.
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
Why do IT people have to insist that the only use for a database is "frontline applications"? This is so limited. MySQL is a fantastic entry level database.
MySQL/PHP lets me do very rapid development. Oracle lets me do very reliable things, but at a higher cost.
The big market for me are the millions of small businesses and individuals who just need a website.
Are those folks just SOL? Do you really want them to pay for an Oracle license? And that's not the only cost. Even marginal programmers can learn to get nice things done with MySQL. Oracle isn't like that (yes, I've used both). Doing your website with Oracle cost A LOT more than doing it with MySQL. The cost difference is trivial to a fortune 500 business, but it would kill a struggling company that just wants to get on the web.
Jon Sullivan
Oracle is a barrier to entry.
on
Why Not MySQL?
·
· Score: 1
To my mind Oracle has a limited niche just like MySQL does. (I've only actually used Oracle and MySQL, so I'll just talk about those)
One of the nice things about MySQL is that the learning curve is very shallow. So you don't have to be a DBA to use it. You don't have to learn PL/SQL. If newbie to web design wants to do some cool things on the Internet with a database, MySQL will get you there very quickly.
Maybe the wizards who use the big guns find that lame, but I think it kicks ass. Why do we have to insist people use a pile driver to crack walnuts? Sure big/busy websites with mission critical database queries will be happier with Oracle. But that's a small market compared to the millions of small businesses and individuals who just need a website.
Are those folks just SOL? Do you really want them to pay for an Oracle license? And that's not the only cost. Even marginal programmers can learn to get nice things done with MySQL. Oracle isn't like that (yes, I've used both). Doing your website with Oracle cost A LOT more than doing it with MySQL. The cost difference is trivial to a fortune 500 business, but it would kill a struggling company that just wants to get on the web.
I want the Web to be all over the place and I want the cost of entry to be low. MySQL makes that happen. Oracle is a barrier to entry.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following the Creative Commons build-up for a while and am glad to see it finally launched. I would like to help and/or collaborate if you feel that would be productive.
= showday&pageid=737
8 17
I listened to a presentation Lawrence Lessig gave at SXSW earlier this year and was motivated to action.
I've removed the copyright notice from all of my pages and replaced it with an invitation for people to use the content for whatever commercial or creative use they want.
For many years I've maintained a website where I have recipes, stories and thousands of photos. In the past many people have asked to use some of these and I've allowed it with the provision that they include a copyright notice and a link to me. People have stolen some of my designs and I've gotten very upset and threatened to sue.
But hearing your speech made me start to wonder why. What is the point of me stressing out over control of these things? I don't ever intend to make money from them. Why not open them to people who can find a creative use?
So I have.
Already people are grabbing the images and using them for some cool things. A film maker intends to use them in his work, websites are using them for banners. I am very happy. Here's a link to my page where we're discussing this:
http://www.jonsullivan.com/home_archive.php3?task
And an example of one of my public domain photo pages:
http://www.jonsullivan.com/BigPicture.php?imgid=1
I'm rather surprised at how tightly some people's idea of "art" is linked to copyright and control. I always thought art was creativity.
I'm very interested in using the "contributor application" and seeing how well it matches up with the licences I've been using. One thing I did see missing from the licences they show (Attribution, Noncommercial, etc) was an explicitly public domain licence.
Most of my photos actually fall into this category. I just want people to use them, even if I don't attribution. Of course this seems like a bit of a non-licence, but it would be nice to have something specifically stating that. I constantly get email indicating that a) people don't understand what public domain means, and b) they don't believe I really mean it.
At any rate, I want to thank Creative Commons for their work and inspiration.
Don't pick the cow. The cow is totally freakin stupid. Not only do you have to spend all of your time slapping it, but it spends all of it's time doing especially stupid stuff.
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at villager [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at food [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and throws it at tree [slap slap slap]
Cow pulls up bush and eats it [slap slap slap]
Stop pulling up the freakin bushes! [slap slap slap]
Jon Sullivan
What do you mean non-willing? No one is forcing you to look at this stuff. If you really think it's so bad then find some other source for information.
Personally I like using the Internet to get information. If I have a choice between 1) paying a subscription and not seeing ads, 2) seeing ads but paying nothing, or 3) just living without, I'll take option 2 any day. But everyone is free to take option 3. I just don't want to be *forced* to use option 1.
"First, companies are not trying to give you something for free. They are trying to make money."
Well duh. But if they can make money by advertising and still give me articles and news for free then great.
Here's my point - I prefer free.
There's a nifty independent newspaper here in San Diego that is free. You can pick it up all over town and not pay a cent. It has interesting articles and very handy listings for local events. IT'S FREE! But it also has *tons* of ads. No problem I just flip past. The paper seems to be doing just fine.
I would have no problem with an Internet site that worked that way. In fact it might even be better that way. People wouldn't put up with annoying ads unless the content of the site was worth the trouble.
Jon Sullivan
I support the ad model that will allow me to view all of this information, at any time of the day or night, from anywhere I can log in, COMPLETELY FOR FREE!
I don't understand what the problem is with banner ads. Even full page ones, even ones that make me click to continue. As long as it makes the access to the information free I think it's a decent tradeoff.
Let me get this straight. Companies all over the world are struggling to find a way to give you *free* information and you're whining that the ads are badly targeted or "inconvenient."
Spoiled spoiled spoiled.
Jon Sullivan
As I read this I was imagining a blind person checking out most of the flashy, trashy, ad oriented website graphics out there.
I suspect after a short time they'd long for the days when all they could get was the text.
But then I'm not blind, so maybe I just don't know.
Jon Sullivan
Think about it this way: If we have e-voting the people who run the servers can decide who gets to be president. I mean sure, security measures are suppose to prevent that, but hey.......
Jon Sullivan
From the article I got this vision of someone pushing the "go button" and then having the entire sail unravel inside of a small lab filled with engineers.
...... Oh. Hi. No problem. Just testing. We'll get this fixed. Everyone grab a corner."
"AAaAGGHHH! Not that button!" - As they're all tangled in foil and squashed against the ceiling. - "Real cool Yuri. Now help me get this folded back up before they come
Jon Sullivan
Having worked for several folded dot coms and one that made it big, I can assure you that the problem *does* lie with a failure to consider things like a business plan, revenue models, profit......
When I would point out the "plan" was just a bunch of hot air I would get either blank stares or be told flat out that market cap was what mattered, not profit or revenue. Year after year I was flabbergasted at the comic business models that would get VC.
Of course since they were paying me big bucks it didn't seem prudent to quit in disgust. Maybe I was part of the problem. [shrug]
The one dot com that did have a plan was a fantastic success. The owner retired with 160 million in his pocket. I was a short timer and only cashed in for 50K, but one of my friends got 250K after doing tech support for 2 years.
My current employer is doing fine. I'm making lots of money. From where I sit the Internet is doing quite well.
Jon Sullivan
You seem to be saying that Microsoft is too big to sue. I reject that idea. The case against Microsoft is sound (IMHO). Lots of people seem to think so. Lots of lawyers seem to think so. Lots of companies Microsoft peed on seem to think so.
"IBM was on it's way out" I missed the press release about their impending collapse. Could I get some documentation on that? Yes, I'm being sarcastic. I just don't understand how you can justify not suing companies that are too big. It's hard and expensive, so we shouldn't do it?
Jon Sullivan
I think one of the things Bush could do to overcome the lack of a popular mandate would be to get people all worked up over knee-jerk issues such as online pornography, hacking and copyright issues.
This worked well for McCarthy and Nixon. And even Dubya's dad with the Gulf war. Give people something to hate and they'll forgive your weaknesses.
I don't trust the bastard. Especially since his first actions as president have basically been a slap in the face to the moderates who got him elected.
Jon Sullivan
You had a couple good points there and then suddenly became troll-like. Whatever.....
Here's the way I see it, if someone produces some interesting art it would be nice if I could toss them some coin in return. It makes me feel good and it encourages them to make more cool art.
But if I get the art for free I miss out on that warm, fuzzy feeling. And I certainly don't feel warm and fuzzy if I buy it at Amazon.
Freeware is nice, but rewarding people who do cool things is nicer.
Jon Sullivan
That's a worthless solution. What if I don't want to run cracked software? What if i just want to use the software I pay for the same way I do now.
I think it's unfair that I should have to buy two licences just because I have a laptop. This is ridiculous and I won't go for it.
I don't care what the license agreement says, when I buy software I'm also buying the right to use the damn software.
Jon Sullivan
I disagree. We just need to wait for the case law to catch up with the medium.
If you directly tell a telemarketer to remove your information and not contact you again, they have to comply or your have legal recourse. They can be fined.
eBay is a big company. Enough PO'd users could equal a class action law suit. And it's even easier with spam. You have a paper trail. If you set your preferences and they set them back..... Seems like a slam dunk law suit. Provided the case law catches up.......
Jon Sullivan
If it isn't a spoof I have to think that whoever came up with this stupid idea will be fired rather quickly. Let's give them a chance to denounce this.
The first time I read this I just assumed it was a spoof. Can we even verify that this is genuine? It's so ludicrous that I can't believe the company, any company, would stand behind it.
I admit companies will play very fast and loose with the rules to get their message into my in-box, but the wording here sounds like it's almost trying to incite a riot.
"Many of your Notification Preference defaults were set to "no" rather than to "yes", which means that unlike other eBay members, you're not receiving these types of communications."
This is just stupid. It's got to be a spoof. "We feel you made an error when you asked us not to send this email."
Jon Sullivan
This seems to be the opinion of EVERY SINGLE PERSON WHO SEES IT!!! Watch as several million people make a weird face and say, "What???!!"
I suggest we (no, I don't know who 'we' is) shitcan this stupidity and start over. This is seven steps backward.
I personally own several novelty domain names and I wouldn't mind owning more just for the fun factor. But none of these are even interesting.
And I suppose I'm going to have to race to get jon.sullivan.name even though it looks retarded. If I don't grab it ASAP I'll lose out to one of the other 10,000 Jon Sullivans out their. Great solution. This really helps.
New headline "ICANN takes a dump on common sense."
Jon Sullivan
So what DID you like about the movie? I saw it, and I'm really wondering. It was poop. And I even agree with you that movies can be enjoyed even if they're filled with "Slashdot errors".
But the reviewer is dead on with this review. The movie is filled with moments that just made me confused. Every five minutes one of the characters would do something completely out of context.
And the bad science wouldn't be an issue if the movie wasn't taking the science so seriously. One of the themes of the movie is hard science. The writer seems to be trying to impress us with hard science. But the science is awful! All of it.
Everything that happens is either physically impossible or contextually implausible.
Jon Sullivan
I don't think someone who has the ability to scan through the walls of your house for these things will be interested in stealing TVs.
And if you're worried about your privacy, I don't see how they are able to collect any information with this that they aren't already collecting with bar codes.
And of course one of the selling points is that it makes it easier for stores to track stolen items. Do you consider that a bad thing?
Jon Sullivan
The only solution I can see is to bitch slap this jerk until he says he's sorry.
"I'm sorry! I didn't think anyone would actually hit me! I thought it would just drag out in the courts until companies paid me to go away."
If this guy thought the payback for frivolous patents was getting punched, he never would have done it.
The obvious question is: Who decides which inventors get punched? I suggest a poll of experts in the field. Thumbs up or thumbs down.
Jon Sullivan
Obviously these factors must be applied on a case-by-case basis. However, the issue is not whether the marks themselves would be confused for each other, but rather whether the use of a similar mark will cause consumers to confuse the source of the goods or services as being that of the senior mark owner
Since the only way Mattel customers would ever know about mattl.com would be to spell it wrong it the address bar or a search, I don't see how anyone could EVER be confused.
Jon Sullivan
The thing I like best isn't playing the games, but the idea that these things aren't just dropping off the face of the earth when their medium/platform becomes outdated. I hope this is a trend.
And nice of Midway to let it happen. Now if we can just bring the music industry into the 21st century. Three cheers for embracing new technology.
Jon Sullivan
You see that this puts you way out of step with most REAL science fiction readers. In fact, so much so that you should probably not make your opinion about this series public.
It's your right, and I don't have a problem with it, but dude..... It's a classic. It can still be found in any bookstore with a sci fi section. So many people have read this and found it powerful that it has taken on a palpable mystique. It's like saying you don't like apple pie. Everyone likes apple pie. And that's the way it should be. Same with Dune.
1) The story was riveting and very original.
2) The characters were some of the most interesting I've come across.
3) The whole thing was addictive.
Why do you think he kept writing sequels? Because he was bored? No, it was because people kept buying and reading them.
Jon Sullivan
ASP is good for really small projects, but trying to do something involved with it is so frustrating. I always feel like chewing my arm off to escape after a few hours of coding.
No way to escape quotes in a string??? Are you kidding me? You constantly run into places where common programming tactics are impossible.
Try the same things with Perl or PHP and it's straight forward. As it should be. ASP is Romper Room stuff.
Jon Sullivan
It goes beyond that. If a client tells me that they really need zero chance of data lose, I'm going to assume that all the other aspects of the project are more critical than your average business site.
Where I pound keys, if I tell the client they'll need to a few grand more to have this type of integrity, they'd go somewhere else. MySQL is adequate for 90% of the sites out there. It's cheaper to buy (free), but it's also cheaper to develop.
Jon Sullivan
Why do IT people have to insist that the only use for a database is "frontline applications"? This is so limited. MySQL is a fantastic entry level database.
MySQL/PHP lets me do very rapid development. Oracle lets me do very reliable things, but at a higher cost.
The big market for me are the millions of small businesses and individuals who just need a website.
Are those folks just SOL? Do you really want them to pay for an Oracle license? And that's not the only cost. Even marginal programmers can learn to get nice things done with MySQL. Oracle isn't like that (yes, I've used both). Doing your website with Oracle cost A LOT more than doing it with MySQL. The cost difference is trivial to a fortune 500 business, but it would kill a struggling company that just wants to get on the web.
Jon Sullivan
To my mind Oracle has a limited niche just like MySQL does. (I've only actually used Oracle and MySQL, so I'll just talk about those)
One of the nice things about MySQL is that the learning curve is very shallow. So you don't have to be a DBA to use it. You don't have to learn PL/SQL. If newbie to web design wants to do some cool things on the Internet with a database, MySQL will get you there very quickly.
Maybe the wizards who use the big guns find that lame, but I think it kicks ass. Why do we have to insist people use a pile driver to crack walnuts? Sure big/busy websites with mission critical database queries will be happier with Oracle. But that's a small market compared to the millions of small businesses and individuals who just need a website.
Are those folks just SOL? Do you really want them to pay for an Oracle license? And that's not the only cost. Even marginal programmers can learn to get nice things done with MySQL. Oracle isn't like that (yes, I've used both). Doing your website with Oracle cost A LOT more than doing it with MySQL. The cost difference is trivial to a fortune 500 business, but it would kill a struggling company that just wants to get on the web.
I want the Web to be all over the place and I want the cost of entry to be low. MySQL makes that happen. Oracle is a barrier to entry.
Jon Sullivan