Re: Re: Re: erServer beta

Hi Rob,

If you want an initial place for it on the Net for people to see it, I'd
be happy to make one on the techdocs.postgresql.org website, as
replication is quite a useful thing.

Alternatively, registering it on SourceForge as an Open Source project
(be very choosy about the Open Source license you pick!) might be the
best way of going about co-operatively having it developed.

Probably other alternatives too.

Regards and best wishes,

Justin Clift

Rob Arnold wrote:
>
> I have some beta, row level replication stuff that I'm willing to share
> under open source. It doesn't know about foreign keys and such at this
> point, but it works OK on plain old tables. Let me know if you want a copy.
> The upside is that it can do bi-directional synchronization too.
>
> --rob
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "The Hermit Hacker" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>
> To: "Christopher Masto" <chris(at)netmonger(dot)net>
> Cc: "Robert L Mathews" <lists(at)tigertech(dot)com>; <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
> Sent: Monday, April 16, 2001 6:40 PM
> Subject: Re: Re: erServer beta
>
> > On Mon, 16 Apr 2001, Christopher Masto wrote:
> >
> > > On Mon, Apr 16, 2001 at 02:38:36AM -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> > > > Our policy on Open Source vs Closed Source is it depends on who funded
> it
> > > > ... if we covered the costs internally, it goes Open Source ... if a
> > > > client paid us to do it for them, its Closed Source, as paying us to
> do
> > > > something for them is meant to give them a competitive advantage, and
> Open
> > > > Sourcing it would detract from that ...
> > >
> > > Not necessarily. There is a long history of paying for software
> > > development, not because you want it to horde, but because you want it
> > > to exist. Happens all the time in the GNU camp, and with certain
> > > FreeBSD projects.
> > >
> > > If/when we "fund" Postgres development, for example, it would remain
> free.
> >
> > Correct, and understood ... our *policy* is to encourage clients to go
> > that direction, as well, but its ultimately their decision. If we had
> > unlimited funding, everything we'd do would be Open Source, as we'd not
> > *need* clients to pay for that development ...
> >
> > You throw out 'the GNU camp' and 'certain FreeBSD projects' ... can you
> > not name companies that actively participate in both camps, but distribute
> > proprietary, Closed Source software?
> >
> > First one off the top of my head: nVidia ... make fantastic video cards,
> > its all I'll run ... I run on FreeBSD, so right now can't use the 3D stuff
> > under X, because their drivers are proprietary and closed ... Linux'rs do
> > have access to these drivers though, cause nVidia was willing to take the
> > time to *at least* make binaries available to the community. They keep
> > their competitive advantage by not releasing the source code to the
> > drivers, but they give back to the community by providing the drivers to
> > use in our "Open Source" environments ...
> >
> > *shrug* IMHO, there is a place for both in this world ...
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
> http://www.postgresql.org/users-lounge/docs/faq.html

--
"My grandfather once told me that there are two kinds of people: those
who work and those who take the credit. He told me to try to be in the
first group; there was less competition there."
- Indira Gandhi