Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Joe Conway |
---|---|
Subject | Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license |
Date | |
Msg-id | 54EDFF8F.30502@joeconway.com Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license (Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org>) |
Responses |
Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license
Re: contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c license |
List | pgsql-hackers |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 02/24/2015 04:47 AM, Dave Page wrote: > On Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:24 PM, Heikki Linnakangas > <hlinnakangas@vmware.com> wrote: >> contrib/fuzzystrmatch/dmetaphone.c says this: >> >>> /***************************** COPYRIGHT NOTICES >>> *********************** >>> >>> Most of this code is directly from the Text::DoubleMetaphone >>> perl module version 0.05 available from http://www.cpan.org. It >>> bears this copyright notice: >>> >>> >>> Copyright 2000, Maurice Aubrey <maurice@hevanet.com>. All >>> rights reserved. >>> >>> This code is based heavily on the C++ implementation by >>> Lawrence Philips and incorporates several bug fixes courtesy of >>> Kevin Atkinson <kevina@users.sourceforge.net>. >>> >>> This module is free software; you may redistribute it and/or >>> modify it under the same terms as Perl itself. >> >> >> Is that OK? Perl is dual-licensed under the GPL and the "Artistic >> License", so the question is whether the Artistic License is >> compatible with the PostgreSQL license. IANAL, but I couldn't >> immediately figure out what the Artistic License requires, when >> you pick a piece of code and modify and embed it in another >> project. > > My belief (as someone who is not a lawyer, but has spent a fair bit > of time working with them on such issues) is that it is not > compatible. The licence requires derivative works to retain the > licence properties, which have requirements that go well beyond > those of our licence, however, as you point out it's far from clear > whether lifting a piece of code would be subject to those > restrictions, or be covered by clause 8/9 (do we expose a direct > interface to this functionality?) which potentially allow the > original licence to be dropped from derivative works. > > 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? Joe - -- Joe Conway credativ LLC: http://www.credativ.us Linux, PostgreSQL, and general Open Source Training, Service, Consulting, & 24x7 Support -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1 iQIcBAEBAgAGBQJU7f+PAAoJEDfy90M199hlMiYP/0TAVa1Jif8yn6Xv4fxm+Ycs eYxucdUO5GoHzWRluB7E3AFGw+cabC+BWKrTqUwvF/KhYGpvW+L8eEn67gNXQs0f Da5GmTbiql0EEamSNRX4IdzEGjnl5q5ngSwJWPDN71taoNjLWW1bFgVQam0wxbQ/ YGQTMujM2ZQS7yEJsszIw+wH7/3Yoh8keDb+ceYIPfhMXX/cshYehLkjhBEIrY45 lKYVL8fYzUfqV0OHGVak6GfguyK82+kabW8nFQteIS8cdgwFJpzNmU5bIKldQu8p nFr/67hh/kpSBHYlSziwK64CmVj2x0dGZB6I0cLnV+Y290DDT/oaXfvaTpWtGQ75 tz/QH4pNF3wbOvZnqv/QQXo3VU1mpmWraAyghy+bS6gspZ2cJSEs58gnK84LzY8H fOMzqz1YaiViJ+oCIPHU5kjoMiuMsRGDdOx+MIFCe97hRl0eQ60euDlR34gPsWLU rGtFrm/YeW4jBkYnKoi7WtvPBRbUv8VVR7W1pfooElPeou3iaqVL5ImYDvQ1cli2 LRLz5ERBmwfRAQZis2kFbWVCknrCaNZ3JKTuNF+ad8P1lUajmvNkXQ/1nqAiGpvI engjVzxAJbm8ckuKnkK6zA67BU4ylrVOZRypPfBhGzQJj1KkCeT6UIq7245owUoA 7OvQa1lQIDqGPqycEp3U =Em7c -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
pgsql-hackers by date: