At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
>from the code?
Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
That's why they're there.
>Read the GPL and LGPL - they have thought of these issues. It j
At 15:15 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its
>terms and conditions?
>
I am told that the most likely interpretation of this is that it is for use
in PostgreSQL or one of its descendants. The new clause changes that to
'an
At 15:11 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
>
>Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
>fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
>along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
>Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea
Philip Warner wrote:
> My legal advice is that, assuming they knew it was a BSD project, they
> can't take it out of PostgreSQL. But you could, for example, stop Microsoft
> using your compression code in one of their products. The new license
> removes this right from you.
Why wouldn't MS be ab
> That depends on what your market is - for businesses who wants to be
> able to hide source, yes. For businesses who use it, being sure the
> source is available is the best - which the GPL guarantees. BSD gives
> the middle man more freedom to screw the end user ;)
Well, we all want more freedo
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
> >
> >Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
> >from the code?
>
> Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
> That's why they're there.
Putting aside that I don't
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
>
> > The new license should clearly make it impossible to later
> > pull out things again.
>
> I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
> intrusion,
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
> The new license should clearly make it impossible to later
> pull out things again.
I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on cod
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
> The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> > Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> > that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> > "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD abou
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
> Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
> that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
> "slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
> "ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERS
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
> At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
> >
> >The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
> >
> >"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
> >the PostgreSQL software or documentation
At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
>
>The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
>
>"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
>the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
>non-exclusive, worldwide permissi
Philip Warner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> el día Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:13:12 +1000,
escribió:
>As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would
>prefer to see it go GPL;
I agree with this.
(altough is not public domain, it's copywrigth'ed, well copyleft'ed).
btw, if you change
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Thomas Lockhart wrote:
> It is being proposed as an addition to the Postgres development effort.
The Yet Another Open Source License issue is not to be played with. It
will have to go to the OSI and RMS, Slashdot, all the usual suspects. And
you know what it will say? "Postgr
Ned Lilly wrote:
>
> > Two states have adopted UCITA - Virginia and Maryland. Maryland has
> > an October 1, 2000, effective date, but requires that its laws will
> > only apply if there is a reasonable connection with the state.
> > Virginia has an effective date of July 1, 2001, but does not r
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the
> sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are
> within its reach do need to worry about it.
I grant you that, but as Chris pointed out the proposed change may
actually have
Hi Richard,
Richard Rowell schrieb in Nachricht
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>I'm creating a database with 20 tables or so. I have come to the
>table that will likely tie many of these tables together, that is
>every single field in this table will be a foriegn key. My question
>is, rather then inclu
I have been unsubscribed for 2 days, then all of the sudden I was
re-subscribed today. When I try to unsubscribe again using either of my
email addresses, it says I don't exist. But I am getting these messages. I
am assuming that the mailing list machine was restored or something (I
received some
Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
"slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
"ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA" ... but I
consi
One thing to keep in mind: for a very long time, PostgreSQL was the *only* free ("free
as in free speech, not free as in free beer") DBMS. I told dozens of people to
consider PostgreSQL instead of, say, MySQL, for that very reason. Whichever free
software licence you preferred, there was no re
Sean Carmody wrote:
>
> Forgive any blatant ignorance, but maybe someone can help here.
>
> I've installed PostgreSQL 7.0 using the rpm on a Redhat 6.2 setup
> and was hoping to do a quick install of the Perl DBD::Pg module using
> perl -MCPAN -eshell. This failed and I got the message "please s
Chris Bitmead wrote:
> Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the
> USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the
> courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the
> postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (beca
Hi!
I'm having troubles in changing an application that was written in
Visual Basic. It originally accesses a MS Access database file, via Jet,
and I'm helping the programmer to change it to use ODBC to connect to a
PostgreSQL Server, running on top of a Linux Box.
The first problem I have was t
> Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is
> at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory.
Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the
USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the
courts? The USA is at the l
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> > and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity.
> No, that's what the GPL does.
This is only an end user's reply but here goes...
And I feel alot more comfortable with the GPL as an end user. I *trust*
Richard Stallman...alot more tha
Note that I have no issues at all with the addition of the three BOLD
paragraphs ... it is the "under juristiction of the state of
Virginia" part that I have an issue with, as I've noticed, do those other
developers outside of the USofA ...
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
> Thomas Lockhar
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 02:08:17PM +0200, Jochen Weyermanns wrote:
> Path information and so on seem to be OK, moreover the ecpg used with option
> --v shows:
> ecpg - the postgresql preprocessor, version: 2.6.0
> exec sql include ... search starts here:
> .
> /usr/local/incl
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
> > by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
> > *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
> > contribute cod
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>IMHO we'd be damned fools to
>ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
>a good defense mechanism.
FWIW, I think the disclaimer could be strengthened to protect people who
sell the PostgreSQL CD, and people who offer it on server
Tom Lane wrote:
>
> "K. Ari Krupnikov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > psql on the clent machime aborts with this message:
>
> > psql:recreate-dbdom-db.pgsql:4: \connect: pqReadData() -- backend closed
> > the channel unexpectedly.
> > This probably means the backend terminated abnormall
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining
> of the year or the number of days
-- Week number of the year
to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'WW');
-- Day number of the year
to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'DDD');
See the documentat
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>IMHO we'd be damned fools to
>ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
>a good defense mechanism.
I think virtually everybody is happy with the extra disclaimer. It the
other parts that bother me.
-
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining
> of the year or the number of days
>
date_part() or to_char()
BTW. --- what is bad on postgresql docs?
Karel
Thomas Lockhart <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
> by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
> *I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
> contribute code which could make me a targe
34 matches
Mail list logo
