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

Re: License question

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
Cc: "Mickael Deloison" <mdeloison(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License question
Date: 2008-04-25 08:23:05
Message-ID: 20080425102305.2fd4b01a@mha-laptop (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgadmin-hackers
Dave Page wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Mickael Deloison
> <mdeloison(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> > From
> > what I understand I have nothing to do since my code would be under
> > the Artistic License and freely available. Correct?
> Yes, in that respect you can comply with the Artistic licence in the
> same way as GPL - use the same (Artistic) licence and release the
> source code.
> If you are able to separate your code from the pgAdmin code however,
> it may make sense to dual licence the pgScript engine - have it under
> Artistic for bundling in pgAdmin, and BSD for possible future
> integration with psql.

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?

(dual-licensing makes me shudder. Though that's generally the
GPL<->proprietary combination, but the concept has a bad ring to it :-P)


In response to


pgadmin-hackers by date

Next:From: Dave PageDate: 2008-04-25 08:26:02
Subject: Re: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?
Previous:From: Zdenek KotalaDate: 2008-04-25 08:16:46
Subject: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group