Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS

On 10/15/2010 02:36 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane<tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian<bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
>>> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
>> Can't: it's GPL.
>>
> I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
> It would mean any users hoping to redistribute the package couldn't
> include those modules except under the GPL. But most repackagers don't
> include the contrib modules anyways. Even ones that do and want to
> include those modules would only have to include the source to that
> module.
>
> I can see not wanting to let that camel's nose in for fear of having
> packagers always be uncertain about the status of each contrib module
> though.

Didn't we go through the exercise of removing modules that were GPLed a
few years ago?

Having a plethora of different licenses covering code in our repository
seems like a recipe for major confusion, and I think is to be avoided.

cheers

andrew