Hi All,
I am closing this vote. We will announce the results shortly.
We create value for our clients by connecting the world's data.
Josh Innis Software Engineer
Core R Team
*P*: (831)278-0327
3945 Freedom Circle #260, Santa Clara, CA 95054
What would be the definition of minor modification? AGE in general tries to
conform to the ideas in Postgres as much as possible. Which means we are
constantly calling Postgres functions to do work and at runtime queries
will switch between Postgres source code and AGE source code often. When we
In such case, the inclusion of the license is required.
Also, ideally, the 3rd party source code should be retained as separate
source files so we could keep the license header on each file. If they are
code snippet, then it is a bit of a grey area and we should attribute the
source in license (a
We resigned the files using an @apache.org account. There is source code
from Postgres in AGE. There are no files but there are some snippets.
We create value for our clients by connecting the world's data.
Josh Innis Software Engineer
Core R Team
*P*: (831)278-0327
3945 Freedom Circle #260, Santa
There bundle also applies to the source release. However, if you are
certain none of the source code file or snippet is from the Postgres code
base, then, correct, you don’t need to include Postgres license info.
You might want to amend the license and notice, and re-sign with a key with
Hi Felix,
We do not have any binary code from Postgres. The key phrase I saw was "
LICENSE and NOTICE need only be modified to accommodate them *only if their
bits are bundled*." The Apache AGE repository does not have any binary
source files in it. After reading the links you sent, it appears we
Checking this release, not a blocker but a question:
- incubating in name
- signature and hash fine
KEYS file - you should try to sign files with @apache.org issuer email
- DISCLAIMER is fine
- LICENSE and NOTICE
The PostgreSQL license - is it because of code file taken from the project
