Chris Bitmead <chrisb@nimrod.itg.telstra.com.au> wrote:
Thomas Lockhart <lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:
> > Just curious; I probably won't look myself since I don't want to run the
> > risk of compromising our code and licensing. Or is that not an issue
> > with the Inprise license?
>
> I had a bit of a look. There's no obvious reason, just maybe postgres
> has a few more comments and a bit more code inside the action blocks. No
> obvious problem here.
>
> It would be a pity if we can't look and learn from Interbase in this
> instance, because this is one area where there is at least a possibility
> of borrowing something useful.
Well, the license is just the Mozilla Public License with
the names changed. I've just read through it several times,
and I think the main trouble with it is you probably really
do need to have a lawyer look at it... but I think you could
go as far as to include some of the Inprise source files
into postgresql:
http://www.inprise.com/IPL.html
3.7. Larger Works. You may create a Larger Work by combining Covered Code with other code not governed by the
termsof this License and distribute the Larger Work as a single product. In such a case, You must make sure the
requirementsof this License are fulfilled for the Covered Code.
The requirements seem to be pretty commonsense things...
If you use some source code from Inprise, you've got to
keep track of where the source came from, label it with
their license, list any modifications you've made, always
provide the source with any executables, etc.
There's also a bunch of stuff about how this license doesn't
release you from any third party intellectual property
claims (duh! Legal docs always seem to state the obvious at
great length). I might wonder what would happen if Borland
owned a software patent on some algorithm that's included in
this code...
But no, I *think* that's a non-issue:
The Initial Developer hereby grants You a world-wide, royalty-free, non-exclusive license, subject to third party
intellectualproperty claims:
