Re: [GENERAL] pg_filedump binary for CentOS

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu> 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.

I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. For one thing, it
seems that someone could easily end up copying some of that code into
some other place. It would be *nice* to have this available as part
of our regular distribution but I don't want to take any risk of GPL
contamination.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company