Re: License question

From: "Dave Page" <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>
To: "Magnus Hagander" <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
Cc: "Mickael Deloison" <mdeloison(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgadmin-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: License question
Date: 2008-04-25 08:35:23
Message-ID: 937d27e10804250135g56dcdf7bubed3398f2c1bf9ad@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgadmin-hackers

On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> wrote:
>
> Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you
> like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the
> whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin -
> correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave?

Well anything that gets checked into the pgAdmin SVN repo is
considered (and released) under Artistic licence, so any contributions
to pgAdmin that build on pgScript couldn't automatically become BSD
for other projects. You could include both licences in the pgAdmin
tree, and keep the affected code self-contained.

Alternatively, just go Artistic-only. If pgScript is written in C++
then it's not ever going into psql anyway, so it's really a non-issue.

I don't see any major problems here, we just need to figure out the
best way forward. Mickael - what is your preference?

--
Dave Page
EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com

In response to

Responses

Browse pgadmin-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Zdenek Kotala 2008-04-25 08:47:50 Re: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?
Previous Message Magnus Hagander 2008-04-25 08:29:02 Re: Broken 1.8.2 source tar ball?