Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Bruce Momjian writes:
> >> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
> >
> > Can't: it's GPL.
> >
>
> I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
> It would mean any users hoping to
David Boreham writes:
> Just wondering what was the motivation to GPL this code ?
It was written at Red Hat and they have (or at least had at the time)
a company policy of using GPL for any code written in-house.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
Robert Haas writes:
> On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
>> I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
> I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons.
Yeah. From my viewpoint as a downstream packager, it creates a mess.
We've spent a great amou
On 10/15/2010 02:36 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
Bruce Momjian writes:
Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
Can't: it's GPL.
I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
It would mean any users hoping
On 10/15/2010 7:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. For one thing, it
seems that someone could easily end up copying some of that code into
some other place. It would be *nice* to have this available as part
of our regular distribution but I don't want
On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:36 AM, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Bruce Momjian writes:
>>> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
>>
>> Can't: it's GPL.
>>
>
> I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
> It wou
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
>> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
>
> Can't: it's GPL.
>
I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules.
It would mean any users hoping to redistribute the package couldn't
in
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:53:30PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian writes:
> > Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
>
> Can't: it's GPL.
Depends on whether we can get it relicensed.
Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfett
Bruce Momjian writes:
> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib?
Can't: it's GPL.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hacke
Excerpts from Robert Haas's message of jue oct 14 14:10:57 -0300 2010:
> On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > David Boreham wrote:
> >>
> >> As far as I can see there is no pre-built pg_filedump binary for the
> >> PDGD yum repository (8.3.11 for RHEL5). Before I embark on bu
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 12:41 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> David Boreham wrote:
>>
>> As far as I can see there is no pre-built pg_filedump binary for the
>> PDGD yum repository (8.3.11 for RHEL5). Before I embark on building it
>> from source I figured I'd ask here if I'm correct that there is no
>
David Boreham wrote:
>
> As far as I can see there is no pre-built pg_filedump binary for the
> PDGD yum repository (8.3.11 for RHEL5). Before I embark on building it
> from source I figured I'd ask here if I'm correct that there is no
> binary hidden somewhere in the packages.
[ CC to hacker
12 matches
Mail list logo
