[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We do not want to open up the BSD vs GPL debate, but keeping PG as a BSD
license does take an amount of accounting.
I was using GPL as an example, as it was mentioned earlier in the
thread. My comments hold for *any* license, including (at least in the
UK; unfair
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine this scenario:
OpenFoobar is released as GPL. Portions of his code are found in
PostgreSQL. The new owner of OpenFoobar is an IP lawyer. They claim
ownership of code derived from his code. There is now a valid, or
at least legally arguable, argument that
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes me worried. That's the way we *used* to do things, but the
sleazy IP lawyers are looking for anything with which they can create
the
impression of impropriety. The open source and free projects
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes me worried. That's the way we *used* to do things, but the
sleazy IP lawyers are looking for anything with which they can create
the
impression of impropriety. The open source and free projects
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wednesday 19 May 2004 00:19, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes me worried. That's the way we *used* to do things, but the
sleazy IP lawyers are looking for anything with which they can create
the
impression of impropriety. The
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer buying up
the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
licensee agrees to it. If something is released GPL, then
Peter Galbavy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer
buying up
the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
licensee agrees to it. If something
Peter Galbavy wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer
buying up
the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
licensee agrees to it. If
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer buying
up
the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
licensee agrees to it. If something is released GPL,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Imagine this scenario:
OpenFoobar is released as GPL. Portions of his code are found in
PostgreSQL. The new owner of OpenFoobar is an IP lawyer. They claim
ownership of code derived from his code. There is now a valid, or
at least legally arguable, argument that
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
This is a common misconception. It ain't so. According to Eblen Moglen:
The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of
proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply
wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to
You may not distribute this tool without the express written
permission of Mark Russinovich.
Then by no means should *any* of that code be included into PostgreSQL. In
fact, comments should not even make reference to it.
May I point out that there is a heap of debate about whether or not we
can
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Peter Galbavy wrote:
You may not distribute this tool without the express written
permission of Mark Russinovich.
Then by no means should *any* of that code be included into PostgreSQL. In
fact, comments should not even make reference to it.
Does anybody have that written
On Thu, 20 May 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
You may not distribute this tool without the express written
permission of Mark Russinovich.
Then by no means should *any* of that code be included into PostgreSQL. In
fact, comments should not even make reference to it.
May I point
You may not distribute this tool without the express written
permission of Mark Russinovich.
Then by no means should *any* of that code be included into PostgreSQL.
In
fact, comments should not even make reference to it.
May I point out that there is a heap of debate about whether or not we
If you run NTFS, it's still possible to use arbitrary links. In the Windows
world, they are called junctions. Microsoft does not provide a junction tool
for some reason (perhaps because it's limited to NTFS). A good tool, free
and with source, can be found here
Magnus Hagander wrote:
If you run NTFS, it's still possible to use arbitrary links.
In the Windows
world, they are called junctions. Microsoft does not provide
a junction tool
for some reason (perhaps because it's limited to NTFS). A
good tool, free
and with source, can be found here
We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think
its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's.
Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute
it... We can
always link to it.
But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it shows up in the
*default* GUI
We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think
its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's.
Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute
it... We can
always link to it.
But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it shows up in the
*default* GUI
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think
its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's.
Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute
it... We can
always link to it.
But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think
its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's.
Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute
it... We can
always link to it.
But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Let's just make sure we keep records of the generic sources of where we
find things. I get *really* scared when I see sentences like I assume
we
can just look at the source and write our own version bypassing any
license. That is categorically a false asumption
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This makes me worried. That's the way we *used* to do things, but the
sleazy IP lawyers are looking for anything with which they can create
the
impression of impropriety. The open source and free projects are ground
zero for this crap.
We *really* need to be
Hi all,
Attached is a patch against HEAD implementing tablespaces.
I've done some testing on Linux and BSD. I've also compiled without
HAVE_SYMLINK defined -- which determines whether or not tablespaces are
available.
The reason for this is that symlinks are used extensively to simplify
access
Gavin Sherry wrote:
Alternative database location:
Should this code be removed now?
Yes, I believe we agreed on this. One of the committers will take care
of that.
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
However, I think the clarity of removing it is worth it. Also, I think
someone had a special way to do symlinks on Win32 and we should
Manfred Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
However, I think the clarity of removing it is worth it.
Thomas Hallgren wrote:
Manfred Spraul [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Bruce Momjian wrote:
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks (I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to replace it.
However, I think the clarity of
The only downside to removal is that folks without symlinks
(I believe
Win32 only) will loose that functionality with nothing to
replace it.
However, I think the clarity of removing it is worth it.
Also, I think
someone had a special way to do symlinks on Win32 and we should look
into that.
Magnus Hagander wrote:
If you run NTFS, it's still possible to use arbitrary links.
In the Windows
world, they are called junctions. Microsoft does not provide
a junction tool
for some reason (perhaps because it's limited to NTFS). A
good tool, free
and with source, can be found here
Alternative database location:
Should this code be removed now?
I think that this:
CREATE DATABASE blah LOCATION 'xyz';
Should now be interpreted to mean:
CREATE TABLESPACE blah_tbsp LOCATION 'xyz';
CREATE DATABSE blah TABLESPACE blah_tbsp;
Or something like that...
Chris
Shridhar Daithankar [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[snip]
On 7 Oct 2002 at 15:52, Hans-Jürgen Schönig wrote:
[snip]
With tablespaces you can assign 30mb to use a, 120mb to user b etc. ...
Table spaces are a nice abstraction layer to the file system.
Hmm.. And how does that fit in database
32 matches
Mail list logo
