Re: License question

["Mickael Deloison" <mdeloison(at)gmail(dot)com>]

2008/4/25 Dave Page <dpage(at)pgadmin(dot)org>:
> On Fri, Apr 25, 2008 at 9:23 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)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