I did some research on this item. I downloaded the source code to WN from:
http://hopf.math.northwestern.edu/index.html
I could only find the most recent version. wn-2.4.7. I then looked at
its image.c file:
http://momjian.us/expire/image.c
I looked at the last two functions
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:45:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Michael, I saw your patch stating that the copyright was assigned to
> PGDG. However, once that happens, we are of the policy to remove
> copyrights to individual users because it confuses things.
>
> Therefore, I have updated your
Tom Lane wrote:
> [ redirecting to -hackers, as I see no need for this to be a core issue ]
>
> Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Hello,
> > I've recently looked through the PostgreSQL code and a couple of questions
> > surfaced. I was hoping someone here may be able to answer the
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file
> > > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten
> > > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project?
> >
> > This c
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Anyway, the lack of daily Cygwin builds is not permanent.
> There are several supported platforms not represented on the buildfarm -
> e.g. the one HPUX member has never actually reported any results.
Yeah, and this is not a good thing. Eventually I'
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:58:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> That sounds fine --- could you add a note in the source code to this
> effect? "Contributed under the PostgreSQL License" or something like
> that after the copyright notice would be sufficient.
No problem. Just committed it.
Michael
--
Tom Lane wrote:
> "Dave Page" writes:
>>> Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected
>>> promptly. That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known
>>> about
>>> the problem
>>> within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the
>>> buildfarm don't run of
"Dave Page" writes:
>> Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected promptly.
>> That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known about
>> the problem
>> within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the
>> buildfarm don't run often enough. The whole poin
> -Original Message-
> From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 June 2006 15:15
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
>
> Actually, my grip
"Dave Page" writes:
> Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always
> said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which
> is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it.
I think the day will come when there's a good reason to decommissio
> -Original Message-
> From: John DeSoi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: 23 June 2006 14:56
> To: Dave Page
> Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Tom Lane; Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
>
>
>
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file
>>> The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten
>>> directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project?
On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Dave Page wrote:
Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always
said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port
which
is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it.
Are all the tools needed to compile fro
Dave Page wrote:
Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always
said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which
is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it.
Some people still use it for development, I believe. Similar argu
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file
> > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten
> > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project?
>
> This code was added by Michael Meskes in
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Frankly this patch has significant infelicities. For example,
> what is the reason for removing the standard protection
> against double inclusion that header files should usually
> have from pg_config.h.win32?
I've got to admit, I don't recall that.
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Andrew Dunstan
> Sent: 22 June 2006 23:09
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Thomas Lockhart writes:
>> This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29
>> (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status?
> None, beyond the info you already resurrected. I vaguely recall that I
> did take the LJ letter as an invitation to reuse algorithms.
1) Is any John Franks code really in this file?
Possibly, maybe probably. I don't remember the details (9 years is a
long time!) but almost certainly any code or algorithms were
specifically for the "inside" or "outside" routines.
2) Did John provide a separate license for PostgreSQL to li
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing
>> the behavior for Cygwin:
> Maybe we need to divorce Cygwin and Win32.
That seems like probably an overreaction. The impression I got was that
this patch had ac
Tom Lane wrote:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I
suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it.
The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing
the behavior for Cygwin:
[sni
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I
> suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it.
The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing
the behavior for Cygwin:
***
*** 82,94
#e
Tom Lane wrote:
Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I
suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it.
Probably. This is the commit:
2006-06-07 18:24 momjian
[file list snipped]
Prepare code to be
built by MSVC:
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On REL8_1_STABLE sources commenting out the DLLINIT definition in
> Makefile.cygwin works just fine. Same goes for
> Win32/HEAD/Makefile.win32. I just did complete (unreported) buildfarm
> run with these changes made, so I think ripping that out sho
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens.
I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to
DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test
the results on Windows did the patch ...
Tom Lane wrote:
OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens.
I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to
DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test
the results on Windows did the patch ...
Something has br
Josh Berkus wrote:
> Tom,
>
>> adddepend
>> dbase
>> dbmirror
>> fulltextindex
>> mSQL-interface
>> mac
>> oracle
>> tips
>> userlock
>
> I think you're right. I will do this before I leave town on the 30th.
before anyone asks, the files I wrote in contrib/mac are free to be licensed
any way th
Tom Lane wrote:
> Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file
> > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten
> > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project?
Wow, I see what mess we would be into
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Bort, Paul wrote:
>>> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone
>>> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it?
>>
>> IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be
>> around 20
Bort, Paul wrote:
so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone
say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it?
IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be
around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definite
Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
>> Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as
>> I can figure out how to generate a patch that removes directories.
>
> Don't worry about that; CVS never deletes directories. But anyway,
> I can easily handle removing the co
Tom,
> adddepend
> dbase
> dbmirror
> fulltextindex
> mSQL-interface
> mac
> oracle
> tips
> userlock
I think you're right. I will do this before I leave town on the 30th.
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)--
Josh Berkus writes:
> Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as
> I can figure out how to generate a patch that removes directories.
Don't worry about that; CVS never deletes directories. But anyway,
I can easily handle removing the code. I just want someone e
>
> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone
> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it?
>
IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be
around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than
PG 7.3
Tom,
> [ shrug... ] I'm not planning to panic; we've still got explicit GPL
> code that's not been cleaned out of contrib/ yet. (Um, weren't you on
> the hook to move those modules to pgfoundry projects?)
Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as
I can figure
Josh Berkus writes:
> Augh. Does this mean that we need to "backpatch" earlier versions to remove
> the possible GPL links?
[ shrug... ] I'm not planning to panic; we've still got explicit GPL
code that's not been cleaned out of contrib/ yet. (Um, weren't you on
the hook to move those modules
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code?
> I don't think it's needed on Win32. It's not included in my VC++ build,
> because I forgot it :-), and it works just fine.
> The point is that as long as we don't do anything in it (which we
> don't), the runtime s
Tom,
Augh. Does this mean that we need to "backpatch" earlier versions to remove
the possible GPL links?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL @ Sun
San Francisco
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
ht
> > item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code?
> > The file dllinit.c, located in the src/utils directory
> documents the
> > author as Mumit Khan. Did Mumit Khan contribute this code
> and did he
> > contribute it for distribution under the PostgreSQL license? If I
> > read correctly, the name stamp i
[ redirecting to -hackers, as I see no need for this to be a core issue ]
Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hello,
> I've recently looked through the PostgreSQL code and a couple of questions
> surfaced. I was hoping someone here may be able to answer them. Two have
> links to pos
40 matches
Mail list logo
