> Peter Galbavy wrote:
>
>> pgsql@mohawksoft.com wrote:
>>
>>> I'm probably just being alarmist, but think about some IP lawyer
>>> buying up
>>> the entity that owns the GPL code, and suing end user's of PostgreSQL.
>>
>>
>> You cannot retrospectively change the terms of a license unless the
>> licensee agrees to it. If something is released GPL, then the GPL
>> applies to that code and subsequent derivatives - that's the point of
>> the GPL.
>>
>> The new "owner" may change the terms of a license for new
>> distributions of a package, assuming they actually own all the IP, and
>> this is what I understand is the SCO issue. SCO claim that code that
>> was distributed was done so without permission.
>>
>> For an opposite effect, see the origins of the OpenSSH project; to
>> summarise, folks found than an older version of a (at that time)
>> vaguely licensed ssh was BSD licensed ans it was used as a base for a
>> new product - namely OpenSSH.
>>
>
> The code in question is not covered by the GPL, IIRC, which makes this
> somewhat moot. The README that comes with it says:
>
> Terms of Use
> ------------
>
> This software is provided "as is", without any guarantee made
> as to its suitability or fitness for any particular use. It may
> contain bugs, so use of this tool is at your own risk. We take
> no responsilbity for any damage that may unintentionally be caused
> through its use.
>
> You may not distribute this tool without the express written
> permission of Mark Russinovich.
Then by no means should *any* of that code be included into PostgreSQL. In
fact, comments should not even make reference to it.
