The Hermit Hacker writes:
> Personally, I'd like the whole thing weeded down to ... get rid of the
> 'juristiction of ...' (which nobody outside of the US will agree to, from
> what I've been seeing on the list) ... and get rid of "Any person who
> contributes ..." paragraph, which several ppl ha
>not being from maryland but, i would think that the constitution's
>prohibition against ex post facto laws would prevent retro-active
>applications of laws, if the usa actually followed the constitution;
>but that's another topic...
Ex post facto seems pretty one way. If you drop a cigg butt on
Hi Postgresql Colleagues,
I have been a user of Postgresql for a long time and seldom post here, but
after reading the recent fray over license changes, I feel compelled to
post this.
Just to add my miniscule .02 to this discussion As a contributor to
open source (and also a commercial devel
At 02:19 PM 7/5/00 -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>Jan Wieck wrote:
>
>> I'm in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
>> felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way while
>> most commercial players do. Maybe it's something we don't
>> have to wor
Jan Wieck wrote:
> I'm in doubt why none of the other open source projects ever
> felt the need to enforce license agreement in this way while
> most commercial players do. Maybe it's something we don't
> have to worry about, but what if so? What if we all have
> a
Philip Warner wrote:
>
> At 02:36 5/07/00 +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
> >
> >So the problem left are binary distributions.
> >
>
> There might be a technical solution here; I *think* RPM allows pretty
> flexible running of scripts. We could only make binary distributions for
> architectures that
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Gilles DAROLD wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I have some problem to understand why you have to change the PostgreSQL
> Licence
> agreement. You are really making confusion into my mind. For me I have this
> licence
> come with all my distributions :
>
> PostgreSQL Data Base Management
Hi,
I have some problem to understand why you have to change the PostgreSQL
Licence
agreement. You are really making confusion into my mind. For me I have this
licence
come with all my distributions :
PostgreSQL Data Base Management System (formerly known as Postgres,
then as Postgres95).
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 15:11 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:
>
> 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
