Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Issues regarding code license of ported code.

From: "Francisco Figueiredo Jr(dot)" <fxjrlists(at)yahoo(dot)com(dot)br>
To: pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com
Cc: John R Pierce <pierce(at)hogranch(dot)com>,"pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-jdbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Issues regarding code license of ported code.
Date: 2004-09-20 22:35:19
Message-ID: 414F5B27.5000409@yahoo.com.br (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-jdbc
Dave Cramer wrote:
> I'd also like to understand the use of the LPGL license on a postgresql
> interface?
> 


Hi all.

When I started this project, I had very little experience about 
licenses. I knew that LGPL were created to enable library projects and 
so I decided to use it.

Sorry if I did a mistake about that. :(


> I'd go further than saying businesses are ambivalent about GPL, and or
> LPGL; in my experience business's prefer the freebsd license.
> 

Yeah, today I know that! :)

I could ask all developers who contributed to project their permission 
to change the code to bsd license, but, in IMHO, I think this wouldn't 
be necessary, as LGPL fullfills the requirements of Npgsql licensing.


Please, correct me if I'm wrong. ;) I welcome all and any feedback 
possible about that.

Regards,

Francisco Figueiredo Jr.



In response to

pgsql-jdbc by date

Next:From: Francisco Figueiredo Jr.Date: 2004-09-20 22:59:14
Subject: Returning just one resultset from function call with refcursor return
Previous:From: Csaba NagyDate: 2004-09-20 16:19:01
Subject: Re: "Idle in Transaction" revisited.

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group