On 2 February 2011 08:06, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: > I like 2 best. Let's choose that one :-)
Heh, okay. >> 4. The OGL Problem itself. The task of talking to contributors and >> getting them to re-licence is ongoing. I suppose we'll have to >> integrate OGL, and build it as part of our own build system. Should I >> get started on this in anticipation of the re-licensing going ahead? >> It would be nice if our Makefile just invoked a separate >> makefile/build system for OGL, so OGL remained self-contained and >> could easily be used by third parties. > > I think you should assume we'll go ahead. Every response so far has > been positive, including the leading contributor who is responsible > for 99% of the code. That's what I thought. > I don't think we should spend time trying to separate the build. We're > not trying to maintain this for third party users - most of them will > find the published code usable. It's only a problem for those of us > with BSD style licences, and even they could just replace our > module.mk files with the equivalent for their projects in a matter of > minutes, much as we will replace the bakefile. > > Will you use the code that Julian sent you, or stick with the original? I'm going to work with Julian's new code. -- Regards, Peter Geoghegan -- Sent via pgadmin-hackers mailing list (pgadmin-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgadmin-hackers
