Re: Path to PostgreSQL portabiliy

Thomas Lockhart <lockhart(at)fourpalms(dot)org> writes:
> 2) If (1) does not exempt the PostgreSQL app from GPL polution, then why
> not distribute PostgreSQL on Windows using a GPL license?

Given the cygwin licensing terms stated at
http://cygwin.com/licensing.html
it appears to me that we need not open that can of worms (and I'd much
rather not muddy the licensing waters that way, regardless of any
arguments about whether it would hurt or not...)

As near as I can tell, we *could* develop a self-contained installation
package for PG+cygwin without any licensing problem. So that set of
problems could be solved with a reasonable amount of work. I'm still
unclear on whether there are serious technical problems (performance,
stability) with using cygwin.

(Actually, even if there are performance or stability problems, an
easily-installable package would still address the needs of people who
want to "try it out" or "get their feet wet". And maybe that's all we
need to do. We always have said that we recommend a Unix platform for
production-grade PG installations, and IMNSHO that recommendation would
not change one iota if there were a native rather than cygwin-based
Windows port. So I'm unconvinced that we have a problem to solve
anyway...)

regards, tom lane