Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Douglas McNaught wrote:
On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 3:18 AM, Stephen R. van den Berg <s...@cuci.nl>
wrote:
I'm not speaking for Lasse, merely providing food for thought, but it
sounds
feasible to me (and conforming to Lasse's spirit of his intended
license)
to put something like the following license on his code, which would
allow
inclusion into the PostgreSQL codebase and not restrict usage in any
of the derived works:
"Grant license to use the code in question without cost, provided that
the code is being linked to at least 50% of the PostgreSQL code it is
being distributed alongside with."
This should allow commercial reuse in derived products without
undesirable
sideeffects.
I think Postgres becomes non-DFSG-free if this is done. All of a
sudden one can't pull arbitrary pieces of code out of PG and use them
in other projects (which I'd argue is the intent if not the letter of
the DFSG). Have we ever allowed code in on these terms before? Are
we willing to be dropped from Debian and possibly Red Hat if this is
the case?
Presumably a clean room implementation of this algorithm would get us
over these hurdles, if anyone wants to undertake it.
I certainly agree that we don't want arbitrary bits of our code to be
encumbered or licensed differently from the rest.
do we actually have any numbers that quicklz is actually faster and/or
compresses better than what we have now?
Stefan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
