On 02/25/2015 06:44 PM, Jim Nasby wrote:
> 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...
The first para above was written by Dave Page, who works for EDB ....
cheers
andrew
