Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy

On Wed, 8 May 2002, Tom Lane wrote:

> Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> > 2) If (1) does not exempt the PostgreSQL app from GPL polution, then why
> > not distribute PostgreSQL on Windows using a GPL license?
>
> Given the cygwin licensing terms stated at
> http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
> it appears to me that we need not open that can of worms (and I'd much
> rather not muddy the licensing waters that way, regardless of any
> arguments about whether it would hurt or not...)
>
> As near as I can tell, we *could* develop a self-contained installation
> package for PG+cygwin without any licensing problem. So that set of
> problems could be solved with a reasonable amount of work. I'm still
> unclear on whether there are serious technical problems (performance,
> stability) with using cygwin.

The last time I tried to play with it, any sort of load tended to blow
away the whole IPC side of things ... it was stable to "play with", but
for any *serious* work ... this may have changed though, as it has been
awhile since I played with it last ...