On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Greg Stark <gsst...@mit.edu> wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers