Thread: Mentioning Slony in docs
IMHO it would be appropriate to provide better links to Slony from within the Postgres docs. The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code and it is of course BSD licenced. Now that this has been highlighted to me, I can't see a reason for the previous balanced approach. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs: > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code > and it is of course BSD licenced. Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently? Is "code ownership" a relevant property? -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Thu, 2007-11-08 at 10:10 +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > Am Donnerstag, 8. November 2007 schrieb Simon Riggs: > > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we own the code > > and it is of course BSD licenced. > > Why is that a reason for mentioning it more prominently? It's not, I'm assuming you'd actually like to see it more prominent. My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that. -- Simon Riggs 2ndQuadrant http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of
> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that.
The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution
fits everyone's needs. I don't think the core docs should be pushing
Slony more than other solutions.
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to all of > > the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that. > > The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution > fits everyone's needs. I don't think the core docs should be pushing > Slony more than other solutions. We do mention Slony for in-place upgrades because if its capabilities to work across Postgres versions. -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://postgres.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: RIPEMD160 Simon Riggs wrote: > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced. As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take a stab at it? IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux) or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may be what we actually have anyway. Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer. - -- Greg Sabino Mullane greg@turnstep.com PGP Key: 0x14964AC8 200711081016 http://biglumber.com/x/web?pk=2529DF6AB8F79407E94445B4BC9B906714964AC8 -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iD8DBQFHMyqrvJuQZxSWSsgRAw0hAJ9DD2gwr4nlmeoPNPeifXTloWip6ACgwv9z WQTV1ccmRQ0EBbomxQUxeak= =zng7 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thursday 08 November 2007 10:38, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
> Simon Riggs wrote:
> > The main reason is that Slony is Copyrighted PGDG, so we
> > own the code and it is of course BSD licenced.
>
> As an aside, how can copyright be assigned to a non-defined
> group (a concept really, as near as I can tell). Is the PGDG
> actually defined anywhere yet? If not, anyone want to take
> a stab at it?
>
> IMHO, we need to get this resolved at some point - either have
> the code owned by their respective contributors (e.g. Linux)
> or by a legal entity (e.g. Apache Foundation). The former may
> be what we actually have anyway.
>
> Copying to advocacy as someone there may have the answer.
AFAICT we have the former (code is owned by respective owners). AIUI, in most
European countries copyright is considered naturally given rights that you
have and that you cannot give away. In the U.S., you can give copy rights
away, however you can only do so to a defined legal entity, of which the PGDG
is not one. This can change somewhat depending on country and depending upon
employer agreements, but since no one is employed by the PGDG, it's mostly
moot from what I can tell.
--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter LAMP :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL
On Nov 8, 2007, at 9:28 AM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Simon Riggs <simon@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >>> My understanding was that we were trying to show equal favour to >>> all of >>> the various solutions. This was a reason not to do that. >> >> The reason for taking a "balanced approach" is that no one solution >> fits everyone's needs. I don't think the core docs should be pushing >> Slony more than other solutions. > > We do mention Slony for in-place upgrades because if its > capabilities to > work across Postgres versions. I'm pretty sure Skytools/Londiste works across versions too. Presumably, any replication that's not based on binary format should work. -- Decibel!, aka Jim C. Nasby, Database Architect decibel@decibel.org Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828