| From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Justin Clift <justin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Cc: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Patrick Macdonald <patrickm(at)redhat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org>, <darcy(at)druid(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
| Date: | 2002-02-08 20:38:23 |
| Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0202081234450.10434-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Thu, 7 Feb 2002, Justin Clift wrote:
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> >
> <snip>
> > Yes, I see your point. We better figure out what we need to do, if
> > anything, and do it. I don't see any key pieces in that listing.
>
> If we ask each of the authors (there doesn't seem to be very many) of
> these GPL'd modules to please either change to BSD or to grant
> PostgreSQL a special BSD licensed version, and they agree, would we have
> a problem still?
Would such a special BSD licensed version be usable by all? One of the
nice things about the BSD license is that a company can come along and
build products based off of it. If there is a special exception given to
Postgres, would it apply to such companies coming along and using the
code? If not, is it really that much better than the code being GPL'd?
Take care,
Bill
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2002-02-08 21:17:40 | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
| Previous Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-02-08 20:32:48 | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |