Tom Lane wrote:
> Yeah, I was thinking while I read it that this license seems to have
no
> clue that it's for software that's being given away free :-(.
Obviously
> they have not changed it since SFU was a normal product.
I read some language somewhere that SFU uses the Client Access Licenses
model. IOW, more than 10 connections require you to fork over some $$$.
Not sure about this point at all, though. Also, this may not apply to
your own compiled software, just the services that come with SFU like
NFS.
> Until it occurs to Microsoft to adjust their license terms, the idea
of
> using SFU as part of the Postgres port seems to be right out. Oh
well.
ISTM the SFU license has no bearing on postgresql, except it is a
proprietary build environment. It is a stated objective to have
postgresql build on windows with open source tools as much as possible;
which alone justifies a hand rolled port vs. SFU (same as decision not
to use Visual Studio). However the license of SFU itself is something
postgresql developers need not worry about, IMO (any more than we need
worry about cygwin licensing).
By the way, there postgres 7.2.2 has already been ported to SFU 3.5...
ftp://ftp.interopsystems.com/src/rcp/
It would be really interesting to benchmark this version vs. the
PeerDirect port.
Merlin