On 10/15/2010 7:24 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
> I think that's a bad idea for all kinds of reasons. For one thing, it
> seems that someone could easily end up copying some of that code into
> some other place. It would be *nice* to have this available as part
> of our regular distribution but I don't want to take any risk of GPL
> contamination.
I think there's a tendency to assume that one license rules them all
within a single package, tarball etc.
Just wondering what was the motivation to GPL this code ?
I mean, if I were to write a utility that was only useful for project X,
I'd want to license my code with the same (or a compatible) license
as X. I'd need a really good reason to use a different license.
