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.
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073