Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility
От | Bill Studenmund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.33.0202081320340.10434-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility (Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Fri, 8 Feb 2002, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Actually, I have a mildly amusing theory about this: > > Open-source licenses are mainly about what you can distribute and how. So > if party A gives party B a "special exception" to the license of product P > produced by A, then A has really lost all control, because B now has been > given the right to distribute P under open-source terms. I think it would depend on the wording of the exception. > Concrete case: The config.guess script contained in the PostgreSQL source > tree contains this notice: > > # As a special exception to the GNU General Public License, if you > # distribute this file as part of a program that contains a > # configuration script generated by Autoconf, you may include it under > # the same distribution terms that you use for the rest of that program. > > Since the premise of this condition is fulfilled, we may include > config.guess under the BSD license. The BSD license says, "Permission to > use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its documentation for > any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement is hereby > granted", which means that *anyone* obtaining a copy of the PostgreSQL > source tree can take the config.guess and redistribute it under > BSD-compatible terms. > > So, exceptions work, but just not the way the grantor and the recipient > think. Heh. I definitly agree with you here. If the exceptions looked like the one above, there would be no problem. :-) Take care, Bill
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: