On Thu, May 20, 2010 3:06 pm, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
>> huh? that does not make any sense at all - the licence the submitter
>> chooses _IS_ displayed on the main overview page of the project (see for
>> example: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgbouncer/).
>
> That doesn't happen automatically -- afte
huh? that does not make any sense at all - the licence the submitter
chooses _IS_ displayed on the main overview page of the project (see for
example: http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgbouncer/).
That doesn't happen automatically -- after acceptance, the project owner
needs to select a license
On 05/20/2010 01:58 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> On 05/18/2010 01:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>> I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are
>> marked as "BSD licence" but then the project files don't contain any
>> mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are al
On 05/18/2010 01:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are
marked as "BSD licence" but then the project files don't contain any
mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly
marked Copyright of people or organizatio
On 05/18/2010 09:22 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:32 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit
>>> pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to
>>> trust PgFoundry.
>>>
>
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:32 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit
> > pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to
> > trust PgFoundry.
> >
> pgFoundry is a resource we provide the commun
On 05/18/2010 07:32 AM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Simon Riggs wrote:
>> That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit
>> pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to
>> trust PgFoundry.
>>
>>
>
> pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community.
Simon Riggs wrote:
That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit
pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to
trust PgFoundry.
pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The projects there are
the responsibility of their individual own
> That is the case for *anything*. We could change the PostgreSQL
> licence if we wanted, but it would take a huge amount of effort and
> approval of every contributor ever whose work could be considered an
> artistic contribution.
I doubt it. Do you think that every single contributor is contacta
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 06:32 -0400, Greg Stark wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> > If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open
> > source licence must also be unclear.
>
> I would suggest you, or anyone else who notices, open bugs on any
>
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:59 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> Dave, this is important and so this thread must have a clear resolution,
> so we must stick to a single point and be clear about our logic and our
> statements.
OK. I thought you were talking about copyright and licences though.
> You're sayi
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> If, as you say, the licence is unclear then whether-or-not it is an open
> source licence must also be unclear.
I would suggest you, or anyone else who notices, open bugs on any
packages you want to use for which you find no LICENSE file match
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 09:33 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> No - pgFoundry projects are licenced and copyright-attributed as their
> >> authors see fit (as long as it's an open source licence of course).
> >
> > Yes, are they open source licences?
>
> All the options on pgFoundry are, yes.
>
> >> T
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>
>> > For example, pg_batch is clearly marked "BSD licence", yet the docs and
>> > many of the files are marked "Copyright (c) 2010, NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND
>> > TELEPHONE CORPORATION".
>>
>> Do
On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:53 +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> > For example, pg_batch is clearly marked "BSD licence", yet the docs and
> > many of the files are marked "Copyright (c) 2010, NIPPON TELEGRAPH AND
> > TELEPHONE CORPORATION".
>
> Don't mix up copyright and licence. They are not the same thin
On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:57 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
>
> I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are
> marked as "BSD licence" but then the project files don't contain any
> mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly
> marked Copyright of peo
I notice that there are more than a few projects on pgfoundry that are
marked as "BSD licence" but then the project files don't contain any
mention of the licence details. In some cases, projects are also clearly
marked Copyright of people or organizations.
For example, pg_batch is clearly marked
17 matches
Mail list logo
