| From: | "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Dave Cramer <pg(at)fastcrypt(dot)com>, Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>, Satoshi Nagayasu <nagayasus(at)nttdata(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Subject: | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Date: | 2006-07-13 03:56:12 |
| Message-ID: | 44B5C45C.4010303@commandprompt.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> ... equal claim to inclusion
>> in core. Perhaps more, because it gives us an extra layer of insulation
>> from JVM licensing questions.
>>
> Tom,
> Why to you persist talking about licensing issues with PL/Java? There
> are none. PL/Java builds and runs just fine with gcj and the above
> statement is completely false.
Just to further this with actual documentation :)
1.1 What license is used for libgcj?
libgcj is distributed under the GPL, with the 'libgcc exception'.
This means that linking with libgcj does not by itself cause your
program to fall under the GPL. See LIBGCJ_LICENSE in the source tree for
more details.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
> Dave,
> What JVM requirements does PL/J currently have? What license
> implications are imposed by the components that it depends upon?
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2006-07-13 04:03:59 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |
| Previous Message | Thomas Hallgren | 2006-07-13 03:50:50 | Re: Three weeks left until feature freeze |