Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, PostgreSQL advocacy <pgsql-advocacy(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement
Date: 2005-04-30 04:12:48
Message-ID: 28057.1114834368@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-advocacy pgsql-hackers

Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Regarding the secret code stuff - I predict that it will quickly bite
> whoever does it, unless they are extremely lucky.

Yeah. Bruce and I were worrying about this on the phone today.
If a company is doing some work with the intent that it's a proprietary
extension they can sell, no problem --- the BSD license is specifically
intended to let them do that. What's bothering us is the thought that
people are off in corners developing code that they think they are going
to contribute back into the community code base "after it's done". Past
history shows that the odds of getting such things accepted into the PG
community code base are *very* bad if you didn't communicate with the
community from the start of your development process.

We'd like to avoid such unpleasant surprises, but how to get the word
out?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-advocacy by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kris Jurka 2005-04-30 05:47:45 Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement
Previous Message Bruce Momjian 2005-04-30 03:42:43 Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Kris Jurka 2005-04-30 05:47:45 Re: [HACKERS] Increased company involvement
Previous Message Matthew T. O'Connor 2005-04-30 04:06:45 Re: Feature freeze date for 8.1