| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> |
| Cc: | "'JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de'" <JanWieck(at)t-online(dot)de>, "'pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org'" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: AW: lztext and compression ratios... |
| Date: | 2000-07-13 08:04:36 |
| Message-ID: | 28788.963475476@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Zeugswetter Andreas SB <ZeugswetterA(at)wien(dot)spardat(dot)at> writes:
> LZO and the LZO algorithms and implementations are distributed under the
> terms of the GNU General Public License (GPL) { auf Deutsch }.
GPL is alone a fatal objection for something that has to go into the
guts of Postgres.
More to the point, does it have the same patent-freedom credentials zlib
does? I trust Gailly's opinion about zlib being patent-free because
he spent more time researching the legalities than he did writing code
(and also because zlib has now been around for quite some time with no
challenges). What assurances does LZO offer that we won't be stepping
on a patent mine?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-13 08:07:52 | Re: Some Improvement |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2000-07-13 07:56:19 | Re: Questions relating to "modified while in use" messages |