Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On 02/24/2015 04:47 AM, Dave Page wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <hlinnakangas(at)vmware(dot)com> wrote:
>> contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c says this:
>>
>>> /***************************** COPYRIGHT NOTICES
>>> ***********************
>>>
>>> Most of this code is directly from the Text::DoubleMetaphone
>>> perl module version 0.05 available from http://www.cpan.org. It
>>> bears this copyright notice:
>>>
>>>
>>> Copyright 2000, Maurice Aubrey <maurice(at)hevanet(dot)com>. All
>>> rights reserved.
>>>
>>> This code is based heavily on the C++ implementation by
>>> Lawrence Philips and incorporates several bug fixes courtesy of
>>> Kevin Atkinson <kevina(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net>.
>>>
>>> This module is free software; you may redistribute it and/or
>>> modify it under the same terms as Perl itself.
>>
>>
>> Is that OK? Perl is dual-licensed under the GPL and the "Artistic
>> License", so the question is whether the Artistic License is
>> compatible with the PostgreSQL license. IANAL, but I couldn't
>> immediately figure out what the Artistic License requires, when
>> you pick a piece of code and modify and embed it in another
>> project.
>
> My belief (as someone who is not a lawyer, but has spent a fair bit
> of time working with them on such issues) is that it is not
> compatible. The licence requires derivative works to retain the
> licence properties, which have requirements that go well beyond
> those of our licence, however, as you point out it's far from clear
> whether lifting a piece of code would be subject to those
> restrictions, or be covered by clause 8/9 (do we expose a direct
> interface to this functionality?) which potentially allow the
> original licence to be dropped from derivative works.
>
> It's largely because of such uncertainties that I have been advised
> in the past (by those with appropriate letters after their names)
> to stop using the Artistic licence. This is why I spent nearly a
> year working on changing pgAdmin to the PostgreSQL licence.

I committed this (1 July 2004), but cannot remember any details about
a license discussion. And I searched the list archives and curiously
cannot find any email at all about it either. Maybe Andrew remembers
something.

I doubt we want to rip it out without some suitable replacement -- do we?

Joe

- --
Joe Conway
credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us
Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source
Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=Em7c
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----