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

Re: License question

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Mickael Deloison" <mdeloison(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License question
Date: 2008-04-25 08:35:23
Message-ID: 937d27e10804250135g56dcdf7bubed3398f2c1bf9ad@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you
> like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the
> whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin -
> correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave?

Well anything that gets checked into the pgAdmin SVN repo is
considered (and released) under Artistic licence, so any contributions
to pgAdmin that build on pgScript couldn't automatically become BSD
for other projects. You could include both licences in the pgAdmin
tree, and keep the affected code self-contained.

Alternatively, just go Artistic-only. If pgScript is written in C++
then it's not ever going into psql anyway, so it's really a non-issue.

I don't see any major problems here, we just need to figure out the
best way forward. Mickael - what is your preference?

-- 
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK:   http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-04-25 08:47:50
Subject: Re: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?
Previous:From: Magnus HaganderDate: 2008-04-25 08:29:02
Subject: Re: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?

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