Hi
On Thu, Oct 8, 2020 at 8:16 PM wrote:
> Hi team, I was wondering about your open source license. If I take the
> source and extend it with some non-PostgreSQL related ideas, am I free to
> sell that final product? Do I have to make sure that my code is also open
> source?
&g
Hi team, I was wondering about your open source license. If I take the
source and extend it with some non-PostgreSQL related ideas, am I free to
sell that final product? Do I have to make sure that my code is also open
source?
I read about the copyleft definition, but wasn't sure what ap
Hi,
If I use the PgAdmin in my project where should I put the license?
the copyright holder explicitly license
> it
> under the Artistic 2.0, which is a much better version of the license,
> having
> the same intent but being much more clear and legally solid.
>
And I have,.
Thanks!
>
> -- Darren Duncan
>
> On 2018-10-14 1:13 PM, Chri
Being in the Perl community from where the Artistic licenses originate, I assume
the original intent was version 1.0, which is why the statement is unqualified.
That being said, I recommend that the copyright holder explicitly license it
under the Artistic 2.0, which is a much better version
Hi,
the Debian ftp masters pointed out that the pldebugger license is
ambiguous: The source code states this:
Licence
---
The pl/pgsql debugger API is released under the Artistic Licence.
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/artistic-license.php
Copyright (c) 2004-2017 EnterpriseDB
