On 05/18/2010 09:22 AM, Simon Riggs wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-05-18 at 07:32 -0400, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>> Simon Riggs wrote:
>>> That puts a fairly large hole in recommending that people visit
>>> pgFoundry. That either needs to fixed or users will no longer be able to
>>> trust PgFoundry.
>>>
>
>> pgFoundry is a resource we provide the community. The projects there are
>> the responsibility of their individual owners. We are not going to start
>> being the license police. I at least have neither the time to do that
>> nor any interest in doing it. If people want to use what is on pgFoundry
>> then it is up to them to make sure it has whatever licence meets their
>> requirements.
>
> Agreed, though that significantly lessens the value of that resource for
> everybody. If somebody would like to try to improve that by attempting
> to improve or police the licencing, it would be appreciated.
even if somebody steps up and tries to to that - we have hundreds of
projects on pgf and I think it is impossible to do anything that would
actually provide some sort of "guarantee" that the licence stuff is
properly done fore every project which is the only thing that would
prevent you to do your own research or evaluation. However it makes
sense to the the projects you where you ran into an issue about so it
can be fixed (technically this is simply a bug that needs to be reported).
>
>> What we should do is add the PostgreSQL license to the list of available
>> licenses and make sure it is the default for new projects.
>
> Good idea.
done
Stefan
