2008/4/25 Dave Page <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you > > like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the > > whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin - > > correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave? > > Well anything that gets checked into the pgAdmin SVN repo is > considered (and released) under Artistic licence, so any contributions > to pgAdmin that build on pgScript couldn't automatically become BSD > for other projects. You could include both licences in the pgAdmin > tree, and keep the affected code self-contained. > > Alternatively, just go Artistic-only. If pgScript is written in C++ > then it's not ever going into psql anyway, so it's really a non-issue. > > I don't see any major problems here, we just need to figure out the > best way forward. Mickael - what is your preference? > > > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >
The Artistic License only seems fine and simple, so I am going to go for it. About psql integration, I have never thought about it. But pgScript is written in C++ (with objects and RTTI) and I think if its features were integrated into psql, it would be done in a different way, so this is not an issue right now. Mickael -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list ([email protected]) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
