> That this comes up "much to often" suggests that there is more than near > zero interest. Why can only one compression library can be considered? > We use multiple readline implementations, for better or worse. > > I think the context here is for pg_dump only and in that context a faster > compression library makes a lot of sense. I'd be happy to prepare a patch > if the license issue can be accomodated. Hence my question, what sort of > licence accomodation would we need to be able to use this library?
Based on previous discussions, I suspect that the answer here is "complete relicensing as BSD". I think pursuing any sort of licensing exception is completely futile as there will still be restrictions that will be unacceptable to many in the community. But if someone had an actual BSD-LICENSED compression library that was better than what we have now, I'm not sure why Bruce (or anyone) should be opposed to incorporating it. It's just that all of the proposals that come up for this sort of thing aren't that. ...Robert -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
