| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| Date: | 2010-10-15 13:52:59 |
| Message-ID: | 19477.1287150779@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> wrote:
>> I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
> I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons.
Yeah. From my viewpoint as a downstream packager, it creates a mess.
We've spent a great amount of effort and cajolery over the years to make
sure that the Postgres sources, including contrib, are uniformly
licensed. We're not going to abandon that policy.
I have no idea whether Red Hat could be persuaded to relicense
pg_filedump. It might be worth asking though.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Ugo PARSI | 2010-10-15 14:26:34 | Re: Segfault : PostgreSQL 9.0.0 and PgPool-II. |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-15 13:45:31 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-15 14:02:40 | Re: WIP: extensible enums |
| Previous Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-15 13:45:31 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |