On 2/25/15 4:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
On 02/25/2015 11:59 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
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?
That's more than 10 years ago. I remember creating this for my then work
at the North Carolina State Highway Patrol and sending it to Joe, but
that's about the extent of my recollection.
If the Artistic License isn't acceptable. I guess we'd have to try to
get the code relicensed, or reimplement the function ourselves. There
are numerous implementations out there we could copy from or use as a
basis for reimplementation, including several licensed under the Apache
2.0 license - is that compatible with ours?
Perhaps a company large enough to have in-house counsel (EnterpriseDB?)
could get a quick legal opinion on the license before we start pursuing
other things? Perhaps this is just a non-issue...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
