From: | pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com |
---|---|
To: | "Magnus Hagander" <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
Cc: | "Bruce Momjian" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Andrew Dunstan" <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Table Spaces |
Date: | 2004-05-18 16:44:08 |
Message-ID: | 16853.24.91.171.78.1084898648.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>> >> >We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think
>> >> >its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's.
>> >>
>> >> Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute
>> it... We can
>> >> always link to it.
>> >> But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it shows up in the
>> >> *default* GUI tool), expect there to be questions. An
>> >
>> > I assume we can just look at the source and write our own version
>> > bypassing any license.
>>
>> I wouldn't be so sure about that. If this insane SCO crap has
>> taught me anything, the PostgreSQL should have a defined and
>> legally vetted process for duplicating functionality. ala'
>> phoenix BIOS.
>
> There is more than enough information om MSDN and other sites to make
> this kind of tool without looking at the source. It's generic enough.
Let's just make sure we keep records of the generic sources of where we
find things. I get *really* scared when I see sentences like "I assume we
can just look at the source and write our own version bypassing any
license." That is categorically a false asumption and will create an
arguably derived product. The last thing we want is Oracle or Microsoft
trying to pull an SCO on Postgresql.
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Neil Conway | 2004-05-18 16:49:34 | Re: Why new features only in magior releases ? |
Previous Message | Neil Conway | 2004-05-18 16:39:08 | Re: bitwise and/or aggregate functions? |