| From: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
|---|---|
| To: | "'Hannu Krosing'" <hannu(at)tm(dot)ee>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "'Bruce Momjian'" <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | RE: User locks code |
| Date: | 2001-08-24 17:26:33 |
| Message-ID: | 3705826352029646A3E91C53F7189E32016753@sectorbase2.sectorbase.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > Besides, anyone who actually wanted to use the userlock
> > code would need only to write their own wrapper functions
> > to get around the GPL license.
>
> This is a part of copyright law that eludes me - can i write
> a replacement function for something so simple that it can
> essentially be done in one way only (like incrementing a
> value by one) ?
Yes, this is what bothers me in user-lock case.
On the other hand contrib/user-lock' licence
cannot cover usage of LOCKTAG and LockAcquire
(because of this code is from backend) and this is
all what used in user_lock funcs. So, that licence
is unenforceable to everything... except of func names -:)
Vadim
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-08-24 17:28:17 | RE: User locks code |
| Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-08-24 17:06:56 | Re: CURRENT OF cursor without OIDs |