Re: pg_filedump moved to pgfoundry

I've gotten permission to move pg_filedump from its former home at
sources.redhat.com to pgfoundry. You can find the historical release
tarballs as well as current sources at
http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgfiledump/

One advantage of doing this is it will be a lot easier to let other
folks join in the fun of hacking it. If anyone has been harboring
a yen to improve pg_filedump, please join that pgfoundry project.

(Before someone suggests folding it into contrib/: we can't because
of license issues. pg_filedump is GPL, per Red Hat company policy,
and that's not going to change.)

regards, tom lane

On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:48:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> I've gotten permission to move pg_filedump from its former home at
> sources.redhat.com to pgfoundry. You can find the historical release
> tarballs as well as current sources at
> http://pgfoundry.org/projects/pgfiledump/
>
> One advantage of doing this is it will be a lot easier to let other
> folks join in the fun of hacking it. If anyone has been harboring
> a yen to improve pg_filedump, please join that pgfoundry project.
>
> (Before someone suggests folding it into contrib/: we can't because
> of license issues. pg_filedump is GPL, per Red Hat company policy,
> and that's not going to change.)

Who's the copyright holder(s)? If it's all individual contributors,
Red Hat policy is not in play.

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> On Mon, Jan 17, 2011 at 09:48:58PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
>> (Before someone suggests folding it into contrib/: we can't because
>> of license issues. pg_filedump is GPL, per Red Hat company policy,
>> and that's not going to change.)

> Who's the copyright holder(s)? If it's all individual contributors,
> Red Hat policy is not in play.

Sorry David, it was written on the company's dime.

regards, tom lane

On 18/01/11 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> David Fetter<david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> Who's the copyright holder(s)? If it's all individual contributors,
>> Red Hat policy is not in play.
> Sorry David, it was written on the company's dime.
>

However, I doubt that Red Hat derives any value from this useful product
being excluded from contrib by the choice of license - would they be
receptive to the idea that it would be free marketing to have it in the
main tarball/rpm/deb (etc) with merely a decision to change it GPL->BSD?

regards

Mark

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 09:14:41PM +1300, Mark Kirkwood wrote:
> On 18/01/11 18:04, Tom Lane wrote:
> >David Fetter<david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> >>Who's the copyright holder(s)? If it's all individual
> >>contributors, Red Hat policy is not in play.
> >Sorry David, it was written on the company's dime.
>
> However, I doubt that Red Hat derives any value from this useful
> product being excluded from contrib by the choice of license - would
> they be receptive to the idea that it would be free marketing to
> have it in the main tarball/rpm/deb (etc) with merely a decision to
> change it GPL->BSD?

I'm guessing there's a Policy® at Red Hat that software made on its
dime be GPL (v2, I'd guess), and that getting an exception would
involve convening its board or similarly drastic action.

Is that about right?

Cheers,
David.
--
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
iCal: webcal://www.tripit.com/feed/ical/people/david74/tripit.ics

Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate

David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
> I'm guessing there's a Policy at Red Hat that software made on its
> dime be GPL (v2, I'd guess), and that getting an exception would
> involve convening its board or similarly drastic action.

It's company policy, and while it *might* be possible to get an
exception, the effort involved would far exceed the benefit we'd get out
of it. Moreover, despite Mark's creative argument, I really doubt that
Red Hat would perceive any benefit to themselves in making an exception.

regards, tom lane

On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>> I'm guessing there's a PolicyŽ at Red Hat that software made on its
>> dime be GPL (v2, I'd guess), and that getting an exception would
>> involve convening its board or similarly drastic action.
>
> It's company policy, and while it *might* be possible to get an
> exception, the effort involved would far exceed the benefit we'd get out
> of it.  Moreover, despite Mark's creative argument, I really doubt that
> Red Hat would perceive any benefit to themselves in making an exception.

I'm not sure why they'd care, but it certainly doesn't seem worth
spending the amount of time arguing about it that we are. David and
Mark are, of course, free to spend their time petitioning Red Hat for
relicensing if they are so inclined, but they aren't entitled to tell
you how to spend yours. And even if they were, I would hope that
they'd want you to spend it committing patches rather than arguing
with your employer about relicensing of a utility that's freely
available anyway and of use to 0.1% of our user base.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

2011/1/18 Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>:
> On Tue, Jan 18, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> writes:
>>> I'm guessing there's a PolicyŽ at Red Hat that software made on its
>>> dime be GPL (v2, I'd guess), and that getting an exception would
>>> involve convening its board or similarly drastic action.
>>
>> It's company policy, and while it *might* be possible to get an
>> exception, the effort involved would far exceed the benefit we'd get out
>> of it.  Moreover, despite Mark's creative argument, I really doubt that
>> Red Hat would perceive any benefit to themselves in making an exception.
>
> I'm not sure why they'd care, but it certainly doesn't seem worth
> spending the amount of time arguing about it that we are.  David and
> Mark are, of course, free to spend their time petitioning Red Hat for
> relicensing if they are so inclined, but they aren't entitled to tell
> you how to spend yours.  And even if they were, I would hope that
> they'd want you to spend it committing patches rather than arguing
> with your employer about relicensing of a utility that's freely
> available anyway and of use to 0.1% of our user base.
>

still good, thanks Tom and RH to have push it nearest other PostgreSQL. tools.

--
Cédric Villemain               2ndQuadrant
http://2ndQuadrant.fr/     PostgreSQL : Expertise, Formation et Support

On 19/01/11 05:51, Robert Haas wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why they'd care, but it certainly doesn't seem worth
> spending the amount of time arguing about it that we are. David and
> Mark are, of course, free to spend their time petitioning Red Hat for
> relicensing if they are so inclined, but they aren't entitled to tell
> you how to spend yours. And even if they were, I would hope that
> they'd want you to spend it committing patches rather than arguing
> with your employer about relicensing of a utility that's freely
> available anyway and of use to 0.1% of our user base.
>

Funny how people can read an email and derive a completely different
meaning from what you intended - just to be clear: it certainly wasn't
my intention to tell anyone how to spend their time.

Anyway, good to have pg_filedump on pgfoundry, thanks Tom and RH.

regards

Mark