Thread: License question
Hi, I just posted about the pgScript project. As I said it is going to be both available through the SQL query tool of pgAdmin and as a standalone application. Therefore, to make the integration into pgAdmin easier, I would like to reuse some pgAdmin code (connection part) in the standalone package of pgScript. My mentor advised me to put my work under the Artistic License so that there is nothing to do when pgScript will be part of pgAdmin. However, as I said, the problem is when pgScript is distributed alone, as a standalone program or library, without pgAdmin. How should I proceed? I read the license and there are several possibilities. Is "place your modifications in the Public Domain or otherwise make them Freely Available ... or by allowing the Copyright Holder to include your modifications in the Standard Version of the Package" enough. From what I understand I have nothing to do since my code would be under the Artistic License and freely available. Correct? Mickael
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Mickael Deloison <mdeloison@gmail.com> wrote: > From > what I understand I have nothing to do since my code would be under > the Artistic License and freely available. Correct? Yes, in that respect you can comply with the Artistic licence in the same way as GPL - use the same (Artistic) licence and release the source code. If you are able to separate your code from the pgAdmin code however, it may make sense to dual licence the pgScript engine - have it under Artistic for bundling in pgAdmin, and BSD for possible future integration with psql. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
Dave Page wrote: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:10 AM, Mickael Deloison > <mdeloison@gmail.com> wrote: > > From > > what I understand I have nothing to do since my code would be under > > the Artistic License and freely available. Correct? > > Yes, in that respect you can comply with the Artistic licence in the > same way as GPL - use the same (Artistic) licence and release the > source code. > > If you are able to separate your code from the pgAdmin code however, > it may make sense to dual licence the pgScript engine - have it under > Artistic for bundling in pgAdmin, and BSD for possible future > integration with psql. Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin - correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave? (dual-licensing makes me shudder. Though that's generally the GPL<->proprietary combination, but the concept has a bad ring to it :-P) //Magnus
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you > like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the > whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin - > correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave? Well anything that gets checked into the pgAdmin SVN repo is considered (and released) under Artistic licence, so any contributions to pgAdmin that build on pgScript couldn't automatically become BSD for other projects. You could include both licences in the pgAdmin tree, and keep the affected code self-contained. Alternatively, just go Artistic-only. If pgScript is written in C++ then it's not ever going into psql anyway, so it's really a non-issue. I don't see any major problems here, we just need to figure out the best way forward. Mickael - what is your preference? -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com
2008/4/25 Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>: > On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote: > > > > Yeah, I chatted with Dave about this a couple of days ago, and if you > > like this, I think that's the best. Or I think you can license the > > whole thing as BSD, that will have no conflict at all with pgadmin - > > correct me if I'm wrong here, Dave? > > Well anything that gets checked into the pgAdmin SVN repo is > considered (and released) under Artistic licence, so any contributions > to pgAdmin that build on pgScript couldn't automatically become BSD > for other projects. You could include both licences in the pgAdmin > tree, and keep the affected code self-contained. > > Alternatively, just go Artistic-only. If pgScript is written in C++ > then it's not ever going into psql anyway, so it's really a non-issue. > > I don't see any major problems here, we just need to figure out the > best way forward. Mickael - what is your preference? > > > > -- > Dave Page > EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com > The Artistic License only seems fine and simple, so I am going to go for it. About psql integration, I have never thought about it. But pgScript is written in C++ (with objects and RTTI) and I think if its features were integrated into psql, it would be done in a different way, so this is not an issue right now. Mickael
On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:51 AM, Mickael Deloison <mdeloison@gmail.com> wrote: > The Artistic License only seems fine and simple, so I am going to go for it. > About psql integration, I have never thought about it. But pgScript is > written in C++ (with objects and RTTI) and I think if its features > were integrated into psql, it would be done in a different way, so > this is not an issue right now. OK, cool - Artistic only is most certainly the cleanest and most agreeable approach imho. -- Dave Page EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com