Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] psqlodbc - psqlodbc: Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory
От | Hiroshi Inoue |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] psqlodbc - psqlodbc: Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 464328ED.6070201@tpf.co.jp обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] psqlodbc - psqlodbc: Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@commandprompt.com>) |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
Alvaro Herrera wrote: > Hiroshi Inoue wrote: >> Alvaro Herrera wrote: >>> Robert Treat wrote: >>>> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote: >>>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote: >>>>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote: <snip> >>> Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to >>> relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers >>> want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the >>> Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved >>> developers, obviously). >> There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know >> where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the >> license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long. > > Yes, that is a problem for releasing old code whose developers are long > gone. (What I was thinking was copying *new* code from psqlodbc into > Postgres). What do you mean by *new* code? New line?, word? or other kind of classification? >> Oppositely I thought >> we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm >> not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*. > > ISTM it would be necessary to get legal advice to be sure that it would > be considered not derived, but one would think that that's too much > hassle for something that can be done much more simply by including the > differently-licensed files in the first place, which is legal anyway. OK I understand. Thanks. regards, Hiroshi Inoue
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: