Thread: Re: pgAdmin licence

Dave Page wrote:
>If it is all your own code then of course, you can do as you wish. But
>as I pointed out, the base classes you said you were using were
>originally based on other classes written by myself and others.

I believed the intention of the Artistic License was not to prevent usage of parts of the code in closed source projects,
but to prevent publication of code which looks like the original code and could cause confusion as to what
is the original work.
Isn't this stated even more clearly in the 2.0 verision of the License?

From http://www.perlfoundation.org/artistic_license_2_0:
(8) You are permitted to link Modified and Standard Versions with other
works, to embed the Package in a larger work of your own, or to build
stand-alone binary or bytecode versions of applications that include
the Package, and Distribute the result without restriction, provided
the result does not expose a direct interface to the Package.

Regards,
Knut

Knut P. Lehre wrote:
> Dave Page wrote:
>> If it is all your own code then of course, you can do as you wish.
>> But as I pointed out, the base classes you said you were using were
>>  originally based on other classes written by myself and others.
>
> I believed the intention of the Artistic License was not to prevent
> usage of parts of the code in closed source projects, but to prevent
> publication of code which looks like the original code and could
> cause confusion as to what is the original work. Isn't this stated
> even more clearly in the 2.0 verision of the License?

We don't use v2.0 - trying to change that is what started this thread.

In our licence (http://www.pgadmin.org/licence.php), use in other (or
forked) applications is covered by section 3, and distribution of such
in section 4.

The reason we chose Artistic was that there are a number of different
ways that you can comply with the licence in these situations, unlike
something like the GPL where your only option is to Open Source all
derived code.

Regards, Dave