From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis(at)mindspring(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Another source of snprintf/vsnprintf code |
Date: | 1999-01-25 15:51:02 |
Message-ID: | 19195.917279462@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Todd Graham Lewis <tlewis(at)mindspring(dot)net> writes:
> I assume LGPL is license non grata?
Probably. I'm not sure what Marc's position is, but I'd say we ought
to try to keep everything under a single set of license rules --- and
for better or worse, BSD license is what we have for the existing code.
If we distribute a system that has some BSD and some LGPL code, then
users have to follow *both* sets of rules if they want to live a clean
life, and that gets annoying. (Also, LGPL is more restrictive about
what recipients can do with the code, which might mean some potential
Postgres users couldn't use it anymore.)
> glib has a good *printf* implementation...
Stephen Kogge <stevek(at)uimage(dot)com> was looking at extracting printf
from glib (because his platform's printf didn't handle long long),
but I think he concluded that it wasn't practical to separate it
from the rest of glib --- seems everything's connected to everything
else...
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Thomas G. Lockhart | 1999-01-25 15:55:12 | Re: [HACKERS] Re: datetime regress test busted by incomplete checkin |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-01-25 15:37:11 | Re: [HACKERS] postgres (zombie) |