Re: new food for the contrib/ directory
От | Andreas Scherbaum |
---|---|
Тема | Re: new food for the contrib/ directory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 3CBEF7CE.20658835@htl.de обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: new food for the contrib/ directory (Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: new food for the contrib/ directory
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote: > > Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes: > > Justin Clift wrote: > >> Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code? > >> > >> My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with > >> PostgreSQL being BSD based. > > > Hmm, there's enough GPL'ed stuff in contrib/ ;-) > > Indeed, the core committee recently agreed that we should try to ensure > that the whole distribution is under the same BSD license. I have a > TODO item to contact the authors of the existing GPL'd contrib modules, > and if possible get them to agree to relicense. If not, those modules > will be removed from contrib. > > There are other possible homes for contrib modules whose authors > strongly prefer GPL. For example, Red Hat's add-ons for Postgres will > be GPL (per corporate policy), and I expect that they'd be willing to > host contrib modules. But the core distribution will be straight BSD > to avoid license confusion. I have to excuse myself, because i think, i did a mistake. Yes, my first intention was to make it GPL, but i do not stick to it. On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD licence. I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence. Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me, whats in this case the right (or left) license? Best regards -- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: