| From: | Robert Treat <rtreat(at)webmd(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Anuradha Ratnaweera <anuradha(at)lklug(dot)pdn(dot)ac(dot)lk>, Gavin Sherry <swm(at)linuxworld(dot)com(dot)au>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, anuradha(at)gnu(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
| Date: | 2002-10-16 14:37:02 |
| Message-ID: | 1034779022.31208.24.camel@camel |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 04:34, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Anuradha Ratnaweera wrote:
> <snip>
> > > Nope. To keep the `original' code licence as it is and to release the
> > > changes GPL? Is the question sane at first place?
> >
> > That would be a pretty big mess, I think. People would add your patch
> > to our BSD code and it would be GPL. It could be done, of course.
>
> Don't think so. The patches would be "derived code" that only exist
> because of the BSD licensed PostgreSQL base.
>
> Being "derived code" they'd have to be released as BSD and GPL wouldn't
> enter the picture, regardless if they're released separately as add-on
> patches or not.
>
I'm pretty sure BSD allows you to relicense derived code as you see fit.
However, any derived project that was released GPL would have a hell of
a time ever getting put back into the main source (short of
relicensing).
Robert Treat
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tycho Fruru | 2002-10-16 14:50:35 | Re: Postgresql and multithreading |
| Previous Message | Greg Copeland | 2002-10-16 14:30:01 | Re: Vacuum improvement |