| From: | David Boreham <david_list(at)boreham(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| Date: | 2010-10-15 13:30:39 |
| Message-ID: | 4CB8577F.7030104@boreham.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On 10/15/2010 7:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. For one thing, it
> seems that someone could easily end up copying some of that code into
> some other place. It would be *nice* to have this available as part
> of our regular distribution but I don't want to take any risk of GPL
> contamination.
I think there's a tendency to assume that one license rules them all
within a single package, tarball etc.
Just wondering what was the motivation to GPL this code ?
I mean, if I were to write a utility that was only useful for project X,
I'd want to license my code with the same (or a compatible) license
as X. I'd need a really good reason to use a different license.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Dunstan | 2010-10-15 13:45:31 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-15 13:24:31 | Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Robert Haas | 2010-10-15 13:30:40 | Re: string function - "format" function proposal |
| Previous Message | Andrew Geery | 2010-10-15 13:26:52 | Re: Re: starting to review the Extend NOT NULL representation to pg_constraint patch |