Re: License question

2008/4/25 Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>:
> 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
>

The Artistic License only seems fine and simple, so I am going to go for it.
About psql integration, I have never thought about it. But pgScript is
written in C++ (with objects and RTTI) and I think if its features
were integrated into psql, it would be done in a different way, so
this is not an issue right now.

Mickael