From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Alex Knight <knight(at)phunc(dot)com>, Vivek Khera <khera(at)kcilink(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Date: | 2001-06-27 21:13:43 |
Message-ID: | 01062717134303.00945@lowen.wgcr.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Wednesday 27 June 2001 16:51, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> I don't think it is healthy to suggest that RH will be releasing their
> own custom modifications to the PostgreSQL core server, unless you know
> something we don't. :-)
If I did know such, I couldn't tell anybody ;-). My intent wasn't to
suggest what, on a third reading, my message seems to imply. Thank you for
catching that for me, Bruce.
> All indications I have heard are that they will be submitting patches
> just like everyone else, and will be working on admin tools too. Maybe
> that is what you were referring to about a separate license.
That is what I meant, of course -- I just didn't phrase it well. Patches can
be released with a different license than the code they're patching.
However, I would be surprized if their shipped RHDB product didn't
incorporate changes that they came up with -- even if the PostgreSQL group
didn't apply them to the base dist. Although I certainly reserve the right
to be wrong. Yes, I know that may not be healthy. Yet they do it now with
the Linux kernel (their 'enterprise' kernel patches, for instance) -- why
would PostgreSQL be any different?
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Trond Eivind =?iso-8859-1?q?Glomsr=F8d?= | 2001-06-27 21:16:12 | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |
Previous Message | Alex Knight | 2001-06-27 21:11:09 | Re: Re: Red Hat to support PostgreSQL |