[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> >> >We've looked at it before. Apart from anything else I don't think > >> >> >its license is compatible with PostgreSQL's. > >> >> > >> >> Well, people can still use it. We just can't distribute > >> it... We can > >> >> always link to it. > >> >> But unless there is a GUI tool (actually, unless it shows up in the > >> >> *default* GUI tool), expect there to be questions. An > >> > > >> > I assume we can just look at the source and write our own version > >> > bypassing any license. > >> > >> I wouldn't be so sure about that. If this insane SCO crap has > >> taught me anything, the PostgreSQL should have a defined and > >> legally vetted process for duplicating functionality. ala' > >> phoenix BIOS. > > > > There is more than enough information om MSDN and other sites to make > > this kind of tool without looking at the source. It's generic enough. > > Let's just make sure we keep records of the generic sources of where we > find things. I get *really* scared when I see sentences like "I assume we > can just look at the source and write our own version bypassing any > license." That is categorically a false asumption and will create an > arguably derived product. The last thing we want is Oracle or Microsoft > trying to pull an SCO on Postgresql.
Usually we look at the source, find out how they do it, then find the docs for the underlying functions, and use that. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us [EMAIL PROTECTED] | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
