SQL Server 2005

[Michael Rys]

I think so yes. Both Oracle and Microsoft have such EULA's. I don't know
about IBM. I am not involved in setting the EULA's though...

Best regards
Michael  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk 
> [mailto:http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 6:06 PM
> To: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> Subject: Re:  SQL Server 2005
> 
> Thanks. I've been through that issue before and am careful of 
> license  
> terms.
> 
> My method is to take the average software developer's point of view  
> when evaluating a technology for performance and developer  
> productivity. I then published a kit that shows step-by-step  
> instructions to build a use case and test it. The kit is distributed  
> under an open-source license. I think the publisher's see this as a  
> fair approach so I haven't had a problem. See my latest kit at:  
> http://www.pushtotest.com/Downloads/kits/soakit.html
> 
> Microsoft products had a EULA that restricted performance 
> testing. Is  
> that still the case?
> 
> -Frank
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jan 21, 2006, at 7:41 PM, Michael Rys wrote:
> 
> > Thanks
> >
> > Please be careful with publishing perf results for Oracle and SQL
> > Server. I think they have restrictive licensing terms regarding  
> > that....
> >
> > Best regards
> > Michael
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >> [mailto:http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
> >> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 5:35 PM
> >> To: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >> Subject: Re:  SQL Server 2005
> >>
> >> Hi Michael:
> >>
> >>> Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, 
> here is a
> >>> quick comment:
> >>
> >> Thanks for the feedback. I changed the XQueryNow.com site to allow
> >> anonymous comments.
> >>
> >>> Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> >>> correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
> >>>
> >>> FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It
> >> is meant to
> >>> provide an effective and simple way to transform relational
> >> data into
> >>> XML form.
> >>>
> >>> The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for
> >> managing XML
> >>> data
> >>> that is not relational in nature.
> >>
> >> Good point and I agree with you about the purpose of the XML field
> >> type, XQuery and FOR XML commands being there to support XML in a
> >> relational model. I'll post this as a comment to the blog entry for
> >> other readers.
> >>
> >>> You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only
> >>> subset)
> >>> support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more
> >>> appropriate
> >>> for this list and more useful.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the suggestion. I'm happy to offer a critique of
> >> using XML
> >> in a relational model and will post a critique to this list. I'm
> >> working on a performance and scalability study that among other
> >> things compares performance of native XML DB tools to relational
> >> tools that will back up a critique.
> >>
> >> -Frank
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Jan 21, 2006, at 1:15 PM, Michael Rys wrote:
> >>
> >>> Hi Frank
> >>>
> >>> Since I don't like to register to just comment on a blog, 
> here is a
> >>> quick comment:
> >>>
> >>> Your comment about that FOR XML is not good to manage XML data is
> >>> correct, but also off the point: that's not its purpose...
> >>>
> >>> FOR XML is not meant to be used for managing XML data. It
> >> is meant to
> >>> provide an effective and simple way to transform relational
> >> data into
> >>> XML form.
> >>>
> >>> The XML data type and XQuery and XML-DML are meant for
> >> managing XML
> >>> data
> >>> that is not relational in nature.
> >>>
> >>> You better look at the XML data type and the (at the moment only
> >>> subset)
> >>> support of XQuery. Critique in that area would be much more
> >>> appropriate
> >>> for this list and more useful.
> >>>
> >>> Thanks
> >>> Michael
> >>>
> >>> Disclosure: I am the Program Manager for XML data type,
> >> XQuery and FOR
> >>> XML in SQL Server 2005
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>>> [mailto:http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk] On Behalf Of Frank Cohen
> >>>> Sent: Saturday, January 21, 2006 9:58 AM
> >>>> To: http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>>> Subject:  SQL Server 2005
> >>>>
> >>>> Maybe SQL Server 2005 has some new secret sauce for handling XML
> >>>> data. I ran across Jerry Dixon's article in which he talks
> >> about the
> >>>> new XML features. Jerry writes from a software developer
> >> perspective
> >>>> that seems true: He likes the new XML features but uses them to
> >>>> create XML, not to store XML.
> >>>>
> >>>> I blog about this at:
> >>>>
> >>>> http://www.xquerynow.com/cohensxblog/sql2005.html
> >>>>
> >>>> -Frank
> >>>>
> >>>> ---
> >>>> Frank Cohen, Raining Data, http://www.RainingData.com, phone:
> >>>> 408 236
> >>>> 7604
> >>>> http://www.xquerynow.com for free XML, XQuery and native XML
> >>>> database
> >>>> tips,
> >>>> techniques and solutions.
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>>> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> >>
> >
> 
> _______________________________________________
> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
> http://xquery.com/mailman/listinfo/talk
>