Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
I did some research on this item. I downloaded the source code to WN from: http://hopf.math.northwestern.edu/index.html I could only find the most recent version. wn-2.4.7. I then looked at its image.c file: http://momjian.us/expire/image.c I looked at the last two functions in the file and compared it to what we have in CVS, particularly the version of the code when it was first added to CVS: http://developer.postgresql.org/cvsweb.cgi/pgsql/src/backend/utils/adt/geo_ops.c?rev=1.13;content-type=text%2Fplain Again, look at the last two functions in the file. You will see similarities and differences. Many of the variable names are the same, and there is an identical comment block. The algorithm used is very similar as well, but the style and formatting is different. I have updated the code comment in CVS to mention the web site, GPL license, and article describing the algorithm. Not sure where to go from here. --- bruce wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: > > [ redirecting to -hackers, as I see no need for this to be a core issue ] > > > > Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Hello, > > > I've recently looked through the PostgreSQL code and a couple of > > > questions > > > surfaced. I was hoping someone here may be able to answer them. Two > > > have > > > links to possible GPL sources and the third is just a contribution > > > question. > > > > > item #1: Does the geo_ops.c file contain GPL code? > > > Embedded within the geo_ops.c file is a John Franks copyright statement > > > referring to wn/image.c file from WN Server 1.15.1. WN Server appears to > > > have been under the GPL license since 0.94 and continues to be offered > > > under the GPL license today. John's letter to Linux Journal seems to > > > only > > > point the user to his WN Server distribution vs granting any specific > > > license. > > The comment is: > > /* poly_contain_pt() >* Test to see if the point is inside the polygon. >* Code adapted from integer-based routines in >* Wn: A Server for the HTTP >* File: wn/image.c >* Version 1.15.1 >* Copyright (C) 1995 >* (code offered for use by J. Franks in Linux Journal letter.) >*/ > > That term "adapted from" isn't something Thomas would idly type, I > think. I bet it means he looked at John Franks' code and used it as a > base for our code. I am not concerned. > > > > Questions: > > > 1) Is any John Franks code really in this file? > > > 2) Did John provide a separate license for PostgreSQL to license it under > > > the BSD license? > > > > This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29 > > (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status? > > > > > References: > > > - 1994 e-mail with GPL reference to WN Server v0.94: > > > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q4/1080.html > > > - 1995 e-mail from John with GPL license text reference: > > > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q1/0482.html > > > - WN Server url today: http://hopf.math.northwestern.edu/ > > > - Link to Linux Journal article: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2197 > > > > -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
On Sat, Jun 24, 2006 at 09:45:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Michael, I saw your patch stating that the copyright was assigned to > PGDG. However, once that happens, we are of the policy to remove > copyrights to individual users because it confuses things. > > Therefore, I have updated your applied patch to just mention the > author's name, email address, and date. If that suffices, fine with me. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: > [ redirecting to -hackers, as I see no need for this to be a core issue ] > > Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Hello, > > I've recently looked through the PostgreSQL code and a couple of questions > > surfaced. I was hoping someone here may be able to answer them. Two have > > links to possible GPL sources and the third is just a contribution > > question. > > > item #1: Does the geo_ops.c file contain GPL code? > > Embedded within the geo_ops.c file is a John Franks copyright statement > > referring to wn/image.c file from WN Server 1.15.1. WN Server appears to > > have been under the GPL license since 0.94 and continues to be offered > > under the GPL license today. John's letter to Linux Journal seems to only > > point the user to his WN Server distribution vs granting any specific > > license. The comment is: /* poly_contain_pt() * Test to see if the point is inside the polygon. * Code adapted from integer-based routines in * Wn: A Server for the HTTP * File: wn/image.c * Version 1.15.1 * Copyright (C) 1995 * (code offered for use by J. Franks in Linux Journal letter.) */ That term "adapted from" isn't something Thomas would idly type, I think. I bet it means he looked at John Franks' code and used it as a base for our code. I am not concerned. > > Questions: > > 1) Is any John Franks code really in this file? > > 2) Did John provide a separate license for PostgreSQL to license it under > > the BSD license? > > This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29 > (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status? > > > References: > > - 1994 e-mail with GPL reference to WN Server v0.94: > > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q4/1080.html > > - 1995 e-mail from John with GPL license text reference: > > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q1/0482.html > > - WN Server url today: http://hopf.math.northwestern.edu/ > > - Link to Linux Journal article: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2197 > > > > item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code? > > The file dllinit.c, located in the src/utils directory documents the > > author as Mumit Khan. Did Mumit Khan contribute this code and did he > > contribute it for distribution under the PostgreSQL license? If I read > > correctly, the name stamp in CVS does not indicate that Mumit Khan > > directly contributed this file. I ask because this question has surfaced > > as a forum item for a different project and Mumit Khan directly answered > > their forum posting (http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2002-11/0061.html). > > Per the comments in that thread, it would be pretty trivial to either > rewrite or remove this file. I don't think there is anything there that > amounts to protectable content (and Mumit evidently agrees, see link) > but let's do something about it anyway. Can some of the Windows folk > check whether we can just remove it? File removed. > > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file > > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten > > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project? > > This code was added by Michael Meskes in informix.c rev 1.6 > (2003-05-06). Michael, any info on the exact copyright status? Fixed to remove copyright. -- Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED] EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. + ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Michael Meskes wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file
> > > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten
> > > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project?
> >
> > This code was added by Michael Meskes in informix.c rev 1.6
> > (2003-05-06). Michael, any info on the exact copyright status?
>
> Yes. In fact the copyright belongs to credativ GmbH the company that
> paid Carsten for his work. As you may or may not know I'm the CEO of
> that company and can assure you that his work was contributed to the
> PostgreSQL project.
Michael, I saw your patch stating that the copyright was assigned to
PGDG. However, once that happens, we are of the policy to remove
copyrights to individual users because it confuses things.
Therefore, I have updated your applied patch to just mention the
author's name, email address, and date.
--
Bruce Momjian [EMAIL PROTECTED]
EnterpriseDBhttp://www.enterprisedb.com
+ If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Index: src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c
===
RCS file: /cvsroot/pgsql/src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c,v
retrieving revision 1.44
diff -c -c -r1.44 informix.c
*** src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c 23 Jun 2006 14:50:01 - 1.44
--- src/interfaces/ecpg/compatlib/informix.c 25 Jun 2006 01:41:06 -
***
*** 666,679
return 0;
}
! /***
! rfmt.c - description
! ---
! begin : Wed Apr 2 2003
! copyright : (C) 2003 by Carsten Wolff
! email : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
! Contributed under the PostgreSQL License by credativ GmbH
! ***/
static struct
{
--- 666,675
return 0;
}
! /*
! * rfmt.c - description
! * by Carsten Wolff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, Wed Apr 2 2003
! */
static struct
{
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not
match
Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Anyway, the lack of daily Cygwin builds is not permanent. > There are several supported platforms not represented on the buildfarm - > e.g. the one HPUX member has never actually reported any results. Yeah, and this is not a good thing. Eventually I'd like to get to a point where every platform we consider "supported" has regular buildfarm reports. No more calls for port reports during beta periods --- beta work should focus on functionality testing, not getting it to build. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 09:58:42AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > That sounds fine --- could you add a note in the source code to this > effect? "Contributed under the PostgreSQL License" or something like > that after the copyright notice would be sufficient. No problem. Just committed it. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)
Tom Lane wrote: > "Dave Page" writes: >>> Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected >>> promptly. That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known >>> about >>> the problem >>> within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the >>> buildfarm don't run often enough. The whole point of the buildfarm >>> is to spot problems while the code is still fresh in mind, no? > >> I think that speaks for the current usage of the cygwin port. Snake >> runs native builds daily, but like Magnus and his dev box there's no >> way I'm letting Cygwin anywhere near it. Istr that the only vaguely >> active Cygwin member is Andrew's laptop. > > Well, "lack of interest" is certainly adequate reason to decommission > a port. If we can't find anyone who cares enough about Cygwin to > host a regularly-scheduled buildfarm member, I'm for blowing it off. > What all's needed on the host for this? I might be able to use either my house machine or my work desktop here @pervasive, or one of my test boxes here @pervasive. -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)
"Dave Page" writes: >> Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected promptly. >> That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known about >> the problem >> within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the >> buildfarm don't run often enough. The whole point of the buildfarm is >> to spot problems while the code is still fresh in mind, no? > I think that speaks for the current usage of the cygwin port. Snake runs > native builds daily, but like Magnus and his dev box there's no way I'm > letting Cygwin anywhere near it. Istr that the only vaguely active > Cygwin member is Andrew's laptop. Well, "lack of interest" is certainly adequate reason to decommission a port. If we can't find anyone who cares enough about Cygwin to host a regularly-scheduled buildfarm member, I'm for blowing it off. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 June 2006 15:15 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions > > Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected promptly. > That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known about > the problem > within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the > buildfarm don't run often enough. The whole point of the buildfarm is > to spot problems while the code is still fresh in mind, no? I think that speaks for the current usage of the cygwin port. Snake runs native builds daily, but like Magnus and his dev box there's no way I'm letting Cygwin anywhere near it. Istr that the only vaguely active Cygwin member is Andrew's laptop. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
"Dave Page" writes: > Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always > said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which > is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it. I think the day will come when there's a good reason to decommission the Cygwin port (ie, some problem that seems unreasonably hard to solve), and then I'll be the first in line voting to do so. But accidental breakage due to someone being sloppy with #ifdefs for a different port isn't a good reason. Actually, my gripe about this one is that it wasn't detected promptly. That patch went in two weeks ago; we should have known about the problem within a couple days at most. Seems like the Windows members of the buildfarm don't run often enough. The whole point of the buildfarm is to spot problems while the code is still fresh in mind, no? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
> -Original Message- > From: John DeSoi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 23 June 2006 14:56 > To: Dave Page > Cc: Andrew Dunstan; Tom Lane; Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions > > > On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Dave Page wrote: > > > Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always > > said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port > > which > > is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it. > > > Are all the tools needed to compile from source on Win32 freely > available? Yes. Even when/if we add a VC++ build they will be. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Michael Meskes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file >>> The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten >>> directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project? >> >> This code was added by Michael Meskes in informix.c rev 1.6 >> (2003-05-06). Michael, any info on the exact copyright status? > Yes. In fact the copyright belongs to credativ GmbH the company that > paid Carsten for his work. As you may or may not know I'm the CEO of > that company and can assure you that his work was contributed to the > PostgreSQL project. That sounds fine --- could you add a note in the source code to this effect? "Contributed under the PostgreSQL License" or something like that after the copyright notice would be sufficient. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
On Jun 23, 2006, at 3:10 AM, Dave Page wrote: Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it. Are all the tools needed to compile from source on Win32 freely available? John DeSoi, Ph.D. http://pgedit.com/ Power Tools for PostgreSQL ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Dave Page wrote: Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it. Some people still use it for development, I believe. Similar arguments were used against our having the Win32 port in the first place. Personally I am inclined to support whatever platforms we reasonably can, and leave the choice to users rather than make it for them. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 11:37:08AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote: > > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file > > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten > > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project? > > This code was added by Michael Meskes in informix.c rev 1.6 > (2003-05-06). Michael, any info on the exact copyright status? Yes. In fact the copyright belongs to credativ GmbH the company that paid Carsten for his work. As you may or may not know I'm the CEO of that company and can assure you that his work was contributed to the PostgreSQL project. Michael -- Michael Meskes Email: Michael at Fam-Meskes dot De, Michael at Meskes dot (De|Com|Net|Org) ICQ: 179140304, AIM/Yahoo: michaelmeskes, Jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Go SF 49ers! Go Rhein Fire! Use Debian GNU/Linux! Use PostgreSQL! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Frankly this patch has significant infelicities. For example, > what is the reason for removing the standard protection > against double inclusion that header files should usually > have from pg_config.h.win32? I've got to admit, I don't recall that. It may be an oversight - I keep mixing up pg_config.h.win32 and port.h and port/win32.h in my head ;-) You will notice that the other two of those don't have it. But it shouldn't be a problem - AFAIK it's only loaded from c.h, and that one has protection. > I assume that no test was done to see if this broke Cygwin, > despite the fact that if you have a Windows box to test on, > checking that you haven't broken Cygwin should not be too > difficult.. Given the amount of damage I've seen it do, Cygwin is definitly *not* making it onto my development machines. So no, I didn't build it on cygwin. However, I didn't intend for it to break of course - I tried manual checking. Which I obviously didn't do good enough. I'll try to set it up in a VM for testing. > And why do win32 and cygwin now not include at all pg_config_os.h? It's a way to avoid the step to copy win32\port.h in msvc. configure copies it to pg_config_os.h. Since for win32 platforms (unfortunatly, at this point it considers cygwin win32..)that will always be port/win32.h, it explicitly includes that one instead. Tom writes: > Magnus, this was your patch, can you see about fixing the > collateral damage to the Cygwin build? Will do. May be a ocuple of days before I can set up a VM with cygwin, but I'll try to get it done as soon as I can. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Andrew Dunstan > Sent: 22 June 2006 23:09 > To: Tom Lane > Cc: Bort, Paul; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions > > > > Something has broken Cygwin in the last 18 days ;-( Is there any real reason to continue to support Cygwin? We've always said it's not a first class port, and now we have the native port which is it seems somewhat pointless expending further effort on it. Regards, Dave. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Thomas Lockhart writes: >> This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29 >> (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status? > None, beyond the info you already resurrected. I vaguely recall that I > did take the LJ letter as an invitation to reuse algorithms. I would > guess that I had possible licensing conflicts in mind so would have > tried to avoid them, but it would probably be best for someone to > evaluate that from the current code bases. I may have preserved the > Franks info for attribution of concepts to a specific person and version. Thanks for answering, Tom. Charles, since you were the one interested, maybe you could compare the geo_ops.c code to the Franks code and see if it looks like Tom borrowed code or just the algorithms? > My (also vague) recollection is that the original Postgres algorithm was > just broken. Yeah, I saw while tracing the CVS history that the code you replaced defined "overlaps" as "bounding boxes overlap", which is surely not good enough for polygons ;-) > I would suggest looking at the code, contacting J. Franks > if there are questions or a need for license clarification or > authorization, and finding an alternative algorithm if necessary. The algorithms are probably public-domain, but we might need a clean-room implementation :-( regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
1) Is any John Franks code really in this file? Possibly, maybe probably. I don't remember the details (9 years is a long time!) but almost certainly any code or algorithms were specifically for the "inside" or "outside" routines. 2) Did John provide a separate license for PostgreSQL to license it under the BSD license? Not explicitly that I can recall. This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29 (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status? None, beyond the info you already resurrected. I vaguely recall that I did take the LJ letter as an invitation to reuse algorithms. I would guess that I had possible licensing conflicts in mind so would have tried to avoid them, but it would probably be best for someone to evaluate that from the current code bases. I may have preserved the Franks info for attribution of concepts to a specific person and version. My (also vague) recollection is that the original Postgres algorithm was just broken. I would suggest looking at the code, contacting J. Franks if there are questions or a need for license clarification or authorization, and finding an alternative algorithm if necessary. hth - Tom ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing >> the behavior for Cygwin: > Maybe we need to divorce Cygwin and Win32. That seems like probably an overreaction. The impression I got was that this patch had actually moved the MSVC port quite a long way towards being like the Cygwin port. It was just sloppy :-(. Magnus, this was your patch, can you see about fixing the collateral damage to the Cygwin build? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it. The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing the behavior for Cygwin: [snip] I'm not too sure about the changes in getaddrinfo.c, either. Maybe we need to divorce Cygwin and Win32. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I > suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it. The patch to c.h certainly had no compunction about possibly changing the behavior for Cygwin: *** *** 82,94 #endif #if defined(WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) ! #ifndef WIN32_CLIENT_ONLY ! /* We have to redefine some system functions after they are included above */ ! #include "pg_config_os.h" ! #else ! #include "port/win32.h" /* We didn't run configure, but this is our !* port file */ ! #endif #endif /* Must be before gettext() games below */ --- 80,90 #endif #if defined(WIN32) || defined(__CYGWIN__) ! /* We have to redefine some system functions after they are included above. ! * ! * use port/win32.h directly to work on both mingw and non-mingw. ! */ ! #include "port/win32.h" #endif /* Must be before gettext() games below */ I'm not too sure about the changes in getaddrinfo.c, either. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it. Probably. This is the commit: 2006-06-07 18:24 momjian [file list snipped] Prepare code to be built by MSVC: o remove many WIN32_CLIENT_ONLY defines o add WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER define o add 3rd argument to open() for portability o add include/port/win32_msvc directory for system includes Magnus Hagander Yes. Frankly this patch has significant infelicities. For example, what is the reason for removing the standard protection against double inclusion that header files should usually have from pg_config.h.win32? I assume that no test was done to see if this broke Cygwin, despite the fact that if you have a Windows box to test on, checking that you haven't broken Cygwin should not be too difficult.. And why do win32 and cygwin now not include at all pg_config_os.h? I am not sure I know where to begin to look to find out how to fix things, and I don't have the time to do it either. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On REL8_1_STABLE sources commenting out the DLLINIT definition in > Makefile.cygwin works just fine. Same goes for > Win32/HEAD/Makefile.win32. I just did complete (unreported) buildfarm > run with these changes made, so I think ripping that out should work. OK, I'll do that. > Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I > suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it. Probably. This is the commit: 2006-06-07 18:24 momjian * configure, configure.in, src/backend/libpq/ip.c, src/backend/port/dynloader/win32.c, src/backend/port/win32/Makefile, src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c, src/backend/postmaster/syslogger.c, src/backend/utils/adt/float.c, src/backend/utils/fmgr/dfmgr.c, src/backend/utils/mb/encnames.c, src/bin/initdb/initdb.c, src/bin/pg_controldata/pg_controldata.c, src/bin/pg_ctl/pg_ctl.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_db.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_null.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_tar.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dump.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_dumpall.c, src/bin/pg_dump/pg_restore.c, src/bin/pg_resetxlog/pg_resetxlog.c, src/bin/psql/command.c, src/bin/psql/copy.c, src/bin/psql/print.c, src/bin/psql/win32.mak, src/include/c.h, src/include/getaddrinfo.h, src/include/pg_config.h.win32, src/include/port.h, src/include/libpq/pqcomm.h, src/include/port/win32.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/dirent.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/unistd.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/utime.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/sys/file.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/sys/param.h, src/include/port/win32_msvc/sys/time.h, src/include/storage/s_lock.h, src/interfaces/libpq/fe-connect.c, src/interfaces/libpq/fe-misc.c, src/interfaces/libpq/win32.c, src/interfaces/libpq/win32.mak, src/port/dirent.c, src/port/exec.c, src/port/getaddrinfo.c, src/port/inet_aton.c, src/port/thread.c, src/port/win32error.c, src/timezone/localtime.c: Prepare code to be built by MSVC: o remove many WIN32_CLIENT_ONLY defines o add WIN32_ONLY_COMPILER define o add 3rd argument to open() for portability o add include/port/win32_msvc directory for system includes Magnus Hagander regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan wrote: Tom Lane wrote: OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens. I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test the results on Windows did the patch ... Something has broken Cygwin in the last 18 days ;-( See http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=gibbon&dt=2006-06-22%2021:59:16 I will have a look to see if 8.1 works with ripping this out. On REL8_1_STABLE sources commenting out the DLLINIT definition in Makefile.cygwin works just fine. Same goes for Win32/HEAD/Makefile.win32. I just did complete (unreported) buildfarm run with these changes made, so I think ripping that out should work. Meanwhile, I'd like to know how to fix the Cygwin build on HEAD. I suspect it was the MSVC "improvements" that did it. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens. I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test the results on Windows did the patch ... Something has broken Cygwin in the last 18 days ;-( See http://www.pgbuildfarm.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=gibbon&dt=2006-06-22%2021:59:16 I will have a look to see if 8.1 works with ripping this out. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Josh Berkus wrote: > Tom, > >> adddepend >> dbase >> dbmirror >> fulltextindex >> mSQL-interface >> mac >> oracle >> tips >> userlock > > I think you're right. I will do this before I leave town on the 30th. before anyone asks, the files I wrote in contrib/mac are free to be licensed any way the project sees fit. LER -- Larry Rosenman http://www.lerctr.org/~ler Phone: +1 512-248-2683 E-Mail: ler@lerctr.org US Mail: 430 Valona Loop, Round Rock, TX 78681-3893 ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: > Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file > > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten > > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project? Wow, I see what mess we would be into if we had retained the per-person copyright message on each file. -- Alvaro Herrerahttp://www.CommandPrompt.com/ The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Andrew Dunstan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Bort, Paul wrote: >>> so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone >>> say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it? >> >> IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be >> around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than >> PG 7.3. > 1.3 was announced in May 2001 according to the cygwin announce mailing > list archives, so I think we can safely ignore the section in question. OK, so let's yank the file altogether and see what happens. I can make a cut at fixing the makefiles based on removing references to DLLINIT, but it might be better if someone who's in a position to test the results on Windows did the patch ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Bort, Paul wrote: so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it? IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than PG 7.3. 1.3 was announced in May 2001 according to the cygwin announce mailing list archives, so I think we can safely ignore the section in question. If anyone hasn't upgraded their cygwin since then they probably have more problems than this would give them. cheers andrew ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom Lane wrote: > Josh Berkus writes: >> Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as >> I can figure out how to generate a patch that removes directories. > > Don't worry about that; CVS never deletes directories. But anyway, > I can easily handle removing the code. I just want someone else to > stuff it into pgfoundry, because I'm not up to speed on pgfoundry. > > I believe the current hit-list for modules to move to pgfoundry is > > adddepend > dbase > dbmirror > fulltextindex > mSQL-interface > mac > oracle > tips > userlock one thing to note is that at least on IRC we are still getting a notable number of questions about fixing up constraint triggers left over from importing dumps of old pg versions. The usual answer to that is "try contrib/adddepend" - but i guess redirecting them to pgfoundry will work too. Stefan ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom, > adddepend > dbase > dbmirror > fulltextindex > mSQL-interface > mac > oracle > tips > userlock I think you're right. I will do this before I leave town on the 30th. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Josh Berkus writes: > Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as > I can figure out how to generate a patch that removes directories. Don't worry about that; CVS never deletes directories. But anyway, I can easily handle removing the code. I just want someone else to stuff it into pgfoundry, because I'm not up to speed on pgfoundry. I believe the current hit-list for modules to move to pgfoundry is adddepend dbase dbmirror fulltextindex mSQL-interface mac oracle tips userlock regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
> > so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone > say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it? > IIRC, I've been on 1.5.x for at least three years. 1.0/1.1 seems to be around 2000/2001, based on a quick Google. So it's definitely older than PG 7.3. Regards, Paul Bort ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom, > [ shrug... ] I'm not planning to panic; we've still got explicit GPL > code that's not been cleaned out of contrib/ yet. (Um, weren't you on > the hook to move those modules to pgfoundry projects?) Yeah, thanks for reminding me. Will do before feature freeze. As soon as I can figure out how to generate a patch that removes directories. > I think we should endeavor to clean up any license questions going > forward, but it's useless to worry about the back branches; they are > what they are, and anyone who actually wants to sue us could do so > anyway on the strength of releases already out there. Hmmm ... I don't know. I'd be in favor of providing patches in case people care enough to fix the issue. Maybe not until the next general patch release, but with that. -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Josh Berkus writes: > Augh. Does this mean that we need to "backpatch" earlier versions to remove > the possible GPL links? [ shrug... ] I'm not planning to panic; we've still got explicit GPL code that's not been cleaned out of contrib/ yet. (Um, weren't you on the hook to move those modules to pgfoundry projects?) I think we should endeavor to clean up any license questions going forward, but it's useless to worry about the back branches; they are what they are, and anyone who actually wants to sue us could do so anyway on the strength of releases already out there. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
"Magnus Hagander" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code? > I don't think it's needed on Win32. It's not included in my VC++ build, > because I forgot it :-), and it works just fine. > The point is that as long as we don't do anything in it (which we > don't), the runtime supplied default should be just fine. > I can't speak for cygwin, just standard win32. The part of it that seems not to be a no-op is #ifdef __CYGWIN__ __hDllInstance_base = hInst; #endif /* __CYGWIN__ */ #ifdef __CYGWIN__ _impure_ptr = __imp_reent_data; #endif and the whole thing is wrapped in #if CYGWIN_VERSION_DLL_MAJOR < 1001 so presumably this is only needed for old Cygwin versions. Can anyone say how old "1001" is and whether we still ought to care about it? regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
Tom, Augh. Does this mean that we need to "backpatch" earlier versions to remove the possible GPL links? -- --Josh Josh Berkus PostgreSQL @ Sun San Francisco ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
> > item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code? > > The file dllinit.c, located in the src/utils directory > documents the > > author as Mumit Khan. Did Mumit Khan contribute this code > and did he > > contribute it for distribution under the PostgreSQL license? If I > > read correctly, the name stamp in CVS does not indicate that Mumit > > Khan directly contributed this file. I ask because this > question has > > surfaced as a forum item for a different project and Mumit Khan > > directly answered their forum posting > (http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2002-11/0061.html). > > Per the comments in that thread, it would be pretty trivial > to either rewrite or remove this file. I don't think there > is anything there that amounts to protectable content (and > Mumit evidently agrees, see link) but let's do something > about it anyway. Can some of the Windows folk check whether > we can just remove it? I don't think it's needed on Win32. It's not included in my VC++ build, because I forgot it :-), and it works just fine. The point is that as long as we don't do anything in it (which we don't), the runtime supplied default should be just fine. I can't speak for cygwin, just standard win32. //Magnus ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions
[ redirecting to -hackers, as I see no need for this to be a core issue ] Charles Comiskey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Hello, > I've recently looked through the PostgreSQL code and a couple of questions > surfaced. I was hoping someone here may be able to answer them. Two have > links to possible GPL sources and the third is just a contribution > question. > item #1: Does the geo_ops.c file contain GPL code? > Embedded within the geo_ops.c file is a John Franks copyright statement > referring to wn/image.c file from WN Server 1.15.1. WN Server appears to > have been under the GPL license since 0.94 and continues to be offered > under the GPL license today. John's letter to Linux Journal seems to only > point the user to his WN Server distribution vs granting any specific > license. > Questions: > 1) Is any John Franks code really in this file? > 2) Did John provide a separate license for PostgreSQL to license it under > the BSD license? This code seems to have been inserted by Tom Lockhart on 1997-07-29 (geo_ops.c rev 1.13). Tom, any info on the copyright status? > References: > - 1994 e-mail with GPL reference to WN Server v0.94: > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1994q4/1080.html > - 1995 e-mail from John with GPL license text reference: > http://1997.webhistory.org/www.lists/www-talk.1995q1/0482.html > - WN Server url today: http://hopf.math.northwestern.edu/ > - Link to Linux Journal article: http://www.linuxjournal.com/article/2197 > item #2: Is dllinit.c GPL code? > The file dllinit.c, located in the src/utils directory documents the > author as Mumit Khan. Did Mumit Khan contribute this code and did he > contribute it for distribution under the PostgreSQL license? If I read > correctly, the name stamp in CVS does not indicate that Mumit Khan > directly contributed this file. I ask because this question has surfaced > as a forum item for a different project and Mumit Khan directly answered > their forum posting (http://curl.haxx.se/mail/lib-2002-11/0061.html). Per the comments in that thread, it would be pretty trivial to either rewrite or remove this file. I don't think there is anything there that amounts to protectable content (and Mumit evidently agrees, see link) but let's do something about it anyway. Can some of the Windows folk check whether we can just remove it? > item #3: Carsten Wolff copyright in informix.c file > The file informix.c contains a copyright from Carsten Wolff. Did Carsten > directly contribute this file to the PostgreSQL project? This code was added by Michael Meskes in informix.c rev 1.6 (2003-05-06). Michael, any info on the exact copyright status? > Thank you, > Charles Comiskey > Tivoli Software > IBM Software Group > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 919.224.1223 or TL 687-1223 regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
