On Tue, Aug 9, 2016 at 4:32 PM, Justin Mclean <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > Hi, > >> Why? It would be perfectly fine for PG project to include, lets say an MIT >> source code. > > That would be compatible with our license. But what if they included GPL or > CDDL licensed software?
There's NO WAY that could be the case for the files we're discussing. We know that. Other files that your scan identified is not part of this discussion. This discussion is about properly importing unmodified 3d party code originally available under PostgreSQL license. I can not see how a project available under PostgreSQL license could legally include GPL code for example, so this particular point in context of this particular discussion is moot. Lets move on. >> That's why I don't feel comfortable putting the overall PG licensed header >> there on my own. > > Nor should you if the files are not licensed that way. Good. We agree then. >> I think we're talking slightly past each other -- I told you I do KNOW that >> they >> are licensed under the different ALv2 compatible license. > > The package as a whole is licensed that way. But you stated you didn’t not > know how that file is licensed it may > be ALv2 or it may be something else. Correct. All I know is that it is an ALv2 compatible license. Thanks, Roman. --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
