> pgsql@mohawksoft.com 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.
This makes me worried. That's the way we *used* to do things, but the
sleazy IP lawyers are looking for anything with which they can create the
impression of impropriety. The open source and free projects are ground
zero for this crap.
We *really* need to be careful.