Greg Stark wrote: > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > > Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> writes: > >> Should we consider moving pg_filedump into our /contrib? > > > > Can't: it's GPL. > > > > I don't particularly see a problem with having GPL'd contrib modules. > It would mean any users hoping to redistribute the package couldn't > include those modules except under the GPL. But most repackagers don't > include the contrib modules anyways. Even ones that do and want to > include those modules would only have to include the source to that > module. > > I can see not wanting to let that camel's nose in for fear of having > packagers always be uncertain about the status of each contrib module > though.
I think we should just link to the tool from our docs so there is no license complexity. Where do we add it? -- Bruce Momjian <br...@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com + It's impossible for everything to be true. + -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
