Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

From: Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org>
To: Vince Vielhaber <vev(at)michvhf(dot)com>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>, "'Bruce Momjian'" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
Date: 1999-10-20 16:44:28
Message-ID: 380DF16C.8993F594@wgcr.org
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Vince Vielhaber wrote:
> Items in the contrib section aren't required for the use of PostgreSQL,
> however PostgreSQL *is* required to use those items. So shouldn't the
> items in contrib have to change to a Berkeley style license? :)
>
> I mean it's only fair!

I know of at least two items in contrib that are required to run the
regression tests -- which, arguably, make PostgreSQL require those two
components (autoinc and refint).

And, the GPL is not fair. It is highly restrictive to programmer
freedom in ways (and promotes code freedom in others -- for many things
it makes sense). It's not called the 'GNU Public Virus' without merit.
Lots of great software has been GPL'd -- and that's fine. But
PostgreSQL is not -- and if PostgreSQL wants to remain BSD'd, then GPL'd
code is a real sticky mess that's best left alone.

I am not against either of these two licenses -- but the known issues of
dealing with them have to be understood, or problems may arise.

JMHO, of course.

--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Brook Milligan 1999-10-20 17:15:43 Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?]
Previous Message Hiroshi Inoue 1999-10-20 16:26:19 RE: [HACKERS] mdnblocks is an amazing time sink in huge relations