On 2 February 2011 08:06, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> I like 2 best. Let's choose that one :-)
Heh, okay.
>> 4. The OGL Problem itself. The task of talking to contributors and
>> getting them to re-licence is ongoing. I suppose we'll have to
>> integrate OGL, and build it as part of our own build system. Should I
>> get started on this in anticipation of the re-licensing going ahead?
>> It would be nice if our Makefile just invoked a separate
>> makefile/build system for OGL, so OGL remained self-contained and
>> could easily be used by third parties.
>
> I think you should assume we'll go ahead. Every response so far has
> been positive, including the leading contributor who is responsible
> for 99% of the code.
That's what I thought.
> I don't think we should spend time trying to separate the build. We're
> not trying to maintain this for third party users - most of them will
> find the published code usable. It's only a problem for those of us
> with BSD style licences, and even they could just replace our
> module.mk files with the equivalent for their projects in a matter of
> minutes, much as we will replace the bakefile.
>
> Will you use the code that Julian sent you, or stick with the original?
I'm going to work with Julian's new code.
--
Regards,
Peter Geoghegan
