'Lite' Databases (Re: sqlite3 and dates)

[Paul Rubin]

Ned Deily <nad at acm.org> writes:
>> Same reason lots of people have forked Postgres.  Or you might just want
>> to customize it.
> Well, for whatever reason one might have, one can: it's public domain 
> software.

Yes, but unlike with most FOSS software, your version has much lower
quality assurance than the "official" version because you don't have the
big test suite.  Even if you don't fork or change the code at all, but
you just port it to a new platform or compiler, you really should run
the full set of tests, but you can't.

> It seems like [the SQLite consortium] was an approach Richard Hipp
> and major users of SQLite took to ensure a sustaining funding model
> for the project while ensuring its independence.

The main benefit of the consortium seems to be very close an intense
support from the SQLite core developers, including customization and
porting services.  Consortium membership apparently starts at $75K a
year so I doubt anyone joins just to get the test suite.  There is some
mention of separate licenses just for the test suite but I didn't see a
price tag and I wonder if that generates significant revenue compared to
the consortium.

> given the immense good that the SQLite project has done for so many
> other projects over the years.

Maybe I should look into it more.  I've never particularly felt the need
for it since I've either used client/server databases or else simpler
embedded databases like bsddb or even flat files.  I actually think
Macid/Happstack-state is brilliant but I haven't used it yet.

> Many other less important projects have foundered for lack of
> sustained funding.

Other FOSS databases like Postgres, MySQL, MongoDB, Riak, Cassandra,
etc. all seem to be doing fine.  GNAT Ada (GCC-based Ada compiler and
surrounding ecosystem) is split into free and proprietary components and
you have to pay pretty big to get the proprietary parts, but the free
parts aren't hobbled in any way (like missing tests) AFAIK.