| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Date: | 2005-05-05 14:03:24 |
| Message-ID: | 22980.1115301804@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> writes:
> I've considered relicensing PL/R with a BSD license, but I haven't been
> able to decide whether I really can do that given libR's GPL status, and
> I'm afraid it might tick off the R core developers if I do.
The direction I see this going in wouldn't require relicensing. I don't
see any problem with having both BSD and GPL code in our CVS. What we
want is to try to keep them separate in what we ship: the core tarball
should include only BSD code, but other tarballs could be GPL or LGPL
or whatever.
Given that PL/R depends on linking to a GPL'd R library, it'd be pretty
pointless to insist on PL/R being BSD anyway --- to use it, you'd still
have to obey the restrictions of the GPL.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Marc G. Fournier | 2005-05-05 15:05:48 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-05-05 12:55:42 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Treat | 2005-05-05 14:28:50 | Re: [GENERAL] Interesting article on transactional algorithms includes |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 13:57:06 | Re: Views, views, views! (long) |