On 2/25/15 4:10 PM, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
> On 02/25/2015 11:59 AM, Joe Conway wrote:
>>>
>>> It's largely because of such uncertainties that I have been advised
>>> in the past (by those with appropriate letters after their names)
>>> to stop using the Artistic licence. This is why I spent nearly a
>>> year working on changing pgAdmin to the PostgreSQL licence.
>> I committed this (1 July 2004), but cannot remember any details about
>> a license discussion. And I searched the list archives and curiously
>> cannot find any email at all about it either. Maybe Andrew remembers
>> something.
>>
>> I doubt we want to rip it out without some suitable replacement -- do we?
>>
>>
>
> That's more than 10 years ago. I remember creating this for my then work
> at the North Carolina State Highway Patrol and sending it to Joe, but
> that's about the extent of my recollection.
>
> If the Artistic License isn't acceptable. I guess we'd have to try to
> get the code relicensed, or reimplement the function ourselves. There
> are numerous implementations out there we could copy from or use as a
> basis for reimplementation, including several licensed under the Apache
> 2.0 license - is that compatible with ours?
Perhaps a company large enough to have in-house counsel (EnterpriseDB?)
could get a quick legal opinion on the license before we start pursuing
other things? Perhaps this is just a non-issue...
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
