At 15:17 4/07/00 +1000, Sean Carmody wrote:
perl -MCPAN -eshell. This failed and I got the message "please set
the environment variables POSTGRES_INCLUDE and POSTGRES_LIB!". I'm
not sure what to set these to, or even if this approach will work
given that I intalled via rpm rather than having the
"K. Ari Krupnikov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
psql on the clent machime aborts with this message:
psql:recreate-dbdom-db.pgsql:4: \connect: pqReadData() -- backend closed
the channel unexpectedly.
This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
before or while
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining
of the year or the number of days
date_part() or to_char()
BTW. --- what is bad on postgresql docs?
Karel
-On [2704 08:00], Thomas Lockhart ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I think this is a bad idea for the following reasons:
1) It is trying to be a GPL in what it is trying to achieve without
actually being well thought out. Any person who "submits" modifications
must do so under the sa
Thomas Lockhart [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Postgres is starting to become a visible thing, and is going to be used
by people who don't know much about the free software movement. And
*I'm* within reach of the American court system, and *you* can
contribute code which could make me a target for
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
IMHO we'd be damned fools to
ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
a good defense mechanism.
I think virtually everybody is happy with the extra disclaimer. It the
other parts that bother me.
On Mon, 03 Jul 2000, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
is there a function that returns the number of weeks since the begining
of the year or the number of days
-- Week number of the year
to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'WW');
-- Day number of the year
to_char(CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, 'DDD');
See the
Tom Lane wrote:
"K. Ari Krupnikov" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
psql on the clent machime aborts with this message:
psql:recreate-dbdom-db.pgsql:4: \connect: pqReadData() -- backend closed
the channel unexpectedly.
This probably means the backend terminated abnormally
On Fri, Jun 30, 2000 at 02:08:17PM +0200, Jochen Weyermanns wrote:
Path information and so on seem to be OK, moreover the ecpg used with option
--v shows:
ecpg - the postgresql preprocessor, version: 2.6.0
exec sql include ... search starts here:
.
/usr/local/include
At 03:23 4/07/00 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
IMHO we'd be damned fools to
ignore his advice completely. Sticking your head in the sand is not
a good defense mechanism.
FWIW, I think the disclaimer could be strengthened to protect people who
sell the PostgreSQL CD, and people who offer it on servers,
Note that I have no issues at all with the addition of the three BOLD
paragraphs ... it is the "under juristiction of the state of
Virginia" part that I have an issue with, as I've noticed, do those other
developers outside of the USofA ...
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
Thomas
On Mon, 3 Jul 2000, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
and ensuring that the code stays open source in perpetuity.
No, that's what the GPL does.
This is only an end user's reply but here goes...
And I feel alot more comfortable with the GPL as an end user. I *trust*
Richard Stallman...alot more than
Good point. But the USA is the demon spawning ground for lawyers, and is
at the leading edge of aggressive new legal territory.
Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the
USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the
courts? The USA is at the
Hi!
I'm having troubles in changing an application that was written in
Visual Basic. It originally accesses a MS Access database file, via Jet,
and I'm helping the programmer to change it to use ODBC to connect to a
PostgreSQL Server, running on top of a Linux Box.
The first problem I have was
Chris Bitmead wrote:
Actually that is the exact reason you _don't_ want to be based in the
USA. Do you really want Postgres to be breaking new ground in the
courts? The USA is at the leading edge of lame new legislation. If the
postgresql licence is locked into Virginia law forever, (because
Sean Carmody wrote:
Forgive any blatant ignorance, but maybe someone can help here.
I've installed PostgreSQL 7.0 using the rpm on a Redhat 6.2 setup
and was hoping to do a quick install of the Perl DBD::Pg module using
perl -MCPAN -eshell. This failed and I got the message "please set
One thing to keep in mind: for a very long time, PostgreSQL was the *only* free ("free
as in free speech, not free as in free beer") DBMS. I told dozens of people to
consider PostgreSQL instead of, say, MySQL, for that very reason. Whichever free
software licence you preferred, there was no
I have been unsubscribed for 2 days, then all of the sudden I was
re-subscribed today. When I try to unsubscribe again using either of my
email addresses, it says I don't exist. But I am getting these messages. I
am assuming that the mailing list machine was restored or something (I
received some
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Tom Lane wrote:
Chris and Peter may not feel that they need to worry about the
sillinesses of the American legal system, but those of us who are
within its reach do need to worry about it.
I grant you that, but as Chris pointed out the proposed change may
actually have a
At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants irrevocable,
non-exclusive, worldwide permission,
On Wed, 5 Jul 2000, Philip Warner wrote:
At 11:42 4/07/00 -0300, The Hermit Hacker wrote:
The only part that I believe at least one person had an issue with was:
"Any person who contributes or submits any modification or other change to
the PostgreSQL software or documentation grants
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
"slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
"ANY DEVELOPER" instead of just the "UNIVERSITY
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Jan Wieck wrote:
The Hermit Hacker wrote:
Okay, from seeing the responses so far on the list, I'm not the only one
that has issues with the whole "juristiction of virginia" issue *or* the
"slam this copyright in ppls faces" ... I do like the part in BOLD about
"ANY
Philip Warner [EMAIL PROTECTED] el día Tue, 04 Jul 2000 12:13:12 +1000,
escribió:
As a company who wants PostgreSQL to remain in the public domain, I would
prefer to see it go GPL;
I agree with this.
(altough is not public domain, it's copywrigth'ed, well copyleft'ed).
btw, if you change the
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
The new license should clearly make it impossible to later
pull out things again.
I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
intrusion, but how would it be possible to revoke the license on code
On Tue, 4 Jul 2000, Andrew Sullivan wrote:
On Tue, Jul 04, 2000 at 05:51:14PM +0200, Jan Wieck wrote:
The new license should clearly make it impossible to later
pull out things again.
I'm confused about this. I'm not a coder, so I beg forgiveness for my
intrusion, but how
Philip Warner wrote:
At 14:38 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
Then what happens if I fork the project and remove all these printf's
from the code?
Then I'd guess that the organization that removed them becomes liable.
That's why they're there.
Putting aside that I don't think
That depends on what your market is - for businesses who wants to be
able to hide source, yes. For businesses who use it, being sure the
source is available is the best - which the GPL guarantees. BSD gives
the middle man more freedom to screw the end user ;)
Well, we all want more freedom,
Philip Warner wrote:
My legal advice is that, assuming they knew it was a BSD project, they
can't take it out of PostgreSQL. But you could, for example, stop Microsoft
using your compression code in one of their products. The new license
removes this right from you.
Why wouldn't MS be able
At 15:11 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
Putting aside that I don't think anybody is liable anyway... I could
fork postgres, then sit on pgsql-patches applying them all as they come
along, and go around claiming that my postgres is the "one true".
Tenuous I know, but then the whole idea of
At 15:15 5/07/00 +1000, Chris Bitmead wrote:
Why wouldn't MS be able to take the code and use it while abiding by its
terms and conditions?
I am told that the most likely interpretation of this is that it is for use
in PostgreSQL or one of its descendants. The new clause changes that to
'any
31 matches
Mail list logo
