| From: | Joe Conway <mail(at)joeconway(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "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 06:57:03 |
| Message-ID: | 4279C3BF.1050408@joeconway.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>>Not decided, but it's surely on the radar screen for this discussion.
>>Joe Conway's PL/R is in the back of my mind as well --- it likely has
>>a smaller userbase than the first two, but from a maintenance standpoint
>>it probably belongs on the same level.
>
> Yeah, except PL/R has wierd build requirements (FORTRAN) and different
> licensing (R is GPL). :-(
R requires FORTRAN to build, but PL/R doesn't. PL/R just needs an
installed copy of libR.so (or equiv). Also, PL/R can build using pgxs
now, so it doesn't even need a Postgres source tree.
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.
Joe
(quiet lately, but still lurking...)
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dave Cramer | 2005-05-05 12:55:42 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 05:24:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | falcon | 2005-05-05 07:45:48 | plpgsql SET OF functions in field list of select |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2005-05-05 05:24:06 | Re: [pgsql-advocacy] Increased company involvement |