Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-26 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-25 Thread Michael Meskes
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-24 Thread Bruce Momjian
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Michael Meskes
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread John DeSoi
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Dave Page
-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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Dave Page
-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

Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)

2006-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk 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.

Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)

2006-06-23 Thread Larry Rosenman
Tom Lane wrote: Dave Page dpage@vale-housing.co.uk 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-23 Thread Michael Meskes
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 --

Re: Anyone still care about Cygwin? (was Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions)

2006-06-23 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
[ 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Magnus Hagander
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Josh Berkus
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?

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Josh Berkus
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Bort, Paul
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.

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Josh Berkus
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)---

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Stefan Kaltenbrunner
Tom Lane wrote: Josh Berkus josh@agliodbs.com 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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Alvaro Herrera
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Larry Rosenman
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.

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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 ...

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Andrew Dunstan
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]

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Thomas Lockhart
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

Re: [HACKERS] [CORE] GPL Source and Copyright Questions

2006-06-22 Thread Tom Lane
Thomas Lockhart lockhart@fourpalms.org 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