Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Andreas Scherbaum <adsmail@htl.de> writes:
> > Justin Clift wrote:
> >> Did we reach an opinion as to whether we'll include GPL'd code?
> >>
> >> My vote is to not include this code, as it just muddies the water with
> >> PostgreSQL being BSD based.
>
> > Hmm, there's enough GPL'ed stuff in contrib/ ;-)
>
> Indeed, the core committee recently agreed that we should try to ensure
> that the whole distribution is under the same BSD license. I have a
> TODO item to contact the authors of the existing GPL'd contrib modules,
> and if possible get them to agree to relicense. If not, those modules
> will be removed from contrib.
>
> There are other possible homes for contrib modules whose authors
> strongly prefer GPL. For example, Red Hat's add-ons for Postgres will
> be GPL (per corporate policy), and I expect that they'd be willing to
> host contrib modules. But the core distribution will be straight BSD
> to avoid license confusion.
I have to excuse myself, because i think, i did a mistake.
Yes, my first intention was to make it GPL, but i do not stick to it.
On the other hand, i copied some parts from contrib/noupdate (there'e no
licence in the readme) and now i think, this is contributed under BSD
licence.
I'm sure or i'm wrong? I think, i have to change the licence.
Who is the author of the noupdate module and can anybody tell me,
whats in this case the right (or left) license?
Best regards
-- Andreas 'ads' Scherbaum
