Обсуждение: Re: [ADMIN] License Issue
May, Randy wrote: > PostGresQL Admin, > > > > I am part of an organization that is beginning to write commercial > applications for various Portals (Liferay, etc.). We would like to be > able to deploy PostGresQL as the lightweight database for the Portal to > connect to. Our request for approval to our Legal Department has > stalled due to the following language in one of the files: Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
That would be ideal, and it may come to that. Our Legal department gets a little 'sticky' when we try to modify Open Source Software, so I'd like to avoid that if I can. ____________________________________________________________________ Randy -----Original Message----- From: Alvaro Herrera [mailto:alvherre@commandprompt.com] Sent: Tuesday, April 21, 2009 11:54 AM To: May, Randy Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [ADMIN] License Issue May, Randy wrote: > PostGresQL Admin, > > > > I am part of an organization that is beginning to write commercial > applications for various Portals (Liferay, etc.). We would like to be > able to deploy PostGresQL as the lightweight database for the Portal to > connect to. Our request for approval to our Legal Department has > stalled due to the following language in one of the files: Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX? -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
>> I am part of an organization that is beginning to write commercial
>> applications for various Portals (Liferay, etc.). We would like to
>> be
>> able to deploy PostGresQL as the lightweight database for the
>> Portal to
>> connect to. Our request for approval to our Legal Department has
>> stalled due to the following language in one of the files:
>
> Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your
> server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX?
AIX itself now offers the functions found in src/backend/port/
dynloader/aix.c so I think that file may be obsolete as of (at least
AIX 5.3).
aix.c was required long ago because AIX did not offer the popular
dlopen(), dlsym(), dlclose(), and dlerror() functions - you had to
write them yourself.
-- Korry
Korry Douglas wrote: >>> I am part of an organization that is beginning to write commercial >>> applications for various Portals (Liferay, etc.). We would like to >>> be >>> able to deploy PostGresQL as the lightweight database for the Portal >>> to >>> connect to. Our request for approval to our Legal Department has >>> stalled due to the following language in one of the files: >> >> Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your >> server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX? > > AIX itself now offers the functions found in src/backend/port/ > dynloader/aix.c so I think that file may be obsolete as of (at least AIX > 5.3). It seems that AIX 5.2 will no longer be supported starting 30th april this year, according to http://www-01.ibm.com/software/support/systemsp/lifecycle/#GA -- Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.
Korry Douglas <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com> writes:
>> Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your
>> server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX?
> AIX itself now offers the functions found in src/backend/port/
> dynloader/aix.c so I think that file may be obsolete as of (at least
> AIX 5.3).
> aix.c was required long ago because AIX did not offer the popular
> dlopen(), dlsym(), dlclose(), and dlerror() functions - you had to
> write them yourself.
Well, we've got AIXen in the buildfarm, shall we rip out those files
and see what happens?
regards, tom lane
tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us (Tom Lane) writes: > Korry Douglas <korry.douglas@enterprisedb.com> writes: >>> Seems like the easy solution is to rip out the AIX files in your >>> server deployments ... or are you actually intending to support AIX? > >> AIX itself now offers the functions found in src/backend/port/ >> dynloader/aix.c so I think that file may be obsolete as of (at least >> AIX 5.3). > >> aix.c was required long ago because AIX did not offer the popular >> dlopen(), dlsym(), dlclose(), and dlerror() functions - you had to >> write them yourself. > > Well, we've got AIXen in the buildfarm, shall we rip out those files > and see what happens? Go nuts :-). From "our" perspective (at Afilias), I wouldn't see any problem with stripping out obsolete AIXisms like this, as long as we're validating the change against buildfarm, which we're running regularly. We got rid of our last AIX 5.1 a couple of years ago. However, there have been some reports out there on the InterWeb of people running PostgreSQL on AIX 4.3 and such, and those people might be displeased by this stuff getting "ripped out." But that being said, I can't see it being a particularly sensible to be keeping PostgreSQL up to date on a platform where the OS has been out of maintenance for *years*. -- let name="cbbrowne" and tld="acm.org" in name ^ "@" ^ tld;; http://linuxfinances.info/info/linuxdistributions.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #151. "I will not set myself up as a god. That perilous position is reserved for my trusted lieutenant." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/>
I wrote:
> Well, we've got AIXen in the buildfarm, shall we rip out those files
> and see what happens?
On looking closer, the existing special AIX code is all a no-op anyway
if HAVE_DLOPEN is defined, and there is a comment there saying it's been
obsolete since AIX 4.3. So I think we're pretty safe in removing it,
which I have now done in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > I wrote: > > Well, we've got AIXen in the buildfarm, shall we rip out those files > > and see what happens? > > On looking closer, the existing special AIX code is all a no-op anyway > if HAVE_DLOPEN is defined, and there is a comment there saying it's been > obsolete since AIX 4.3. So I think we're pretty safe in removing it, > which I have now done in HEAD. I assume we don't want to adjust backports, but we still have the license issue there. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +