Greg Stark wrote:
> imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a Microsoft
> Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they would be free
to do

I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort
of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an unscrupulous or
semi-scrupulous commercial vendor.  This has been done in the past (a
certain vendor's tcp/ip stack comes to mind), but I wonder if anyone
ever pulled it with this project.

Merlin

Wed, 3 Mar 2004 15:28:15 -0500
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left?
"Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com> wrote:
>Greg Stark wrote:
>> imposed no such conditions. If Microsoft wanted to release a
>> Microsoft Postgresql under a completely proprietary license they
>> would be free
>>to do
>I have often wondered, in a completely off-topic and unproductive sort
>of way, if exactly that has not already been done by an unscrupulous or
>semi-scrupulous commercial vendor.  This has been done in the past (a
>certain vendor's tcp/ip stack comes to mind), but I wonder if anyone
>ever pulled it with this project.

There's nothing unscrupulous about including BSD's TCP/IP stack in a
commercial product.  In fact, the main reason we all use TCP/IP today is
because of the BSD license.  It was just another protocol at one time.

If I remember correctly, Postgres was used as the basis for the Illustra
commercial product, which was bought by Informix and merged into Informix
Universal Server.

Wed, 3 Mar 2004 16:30:37 -0500
"Ken Hirsch" <kenhirsch@myself.com>
Re: [pgsql-hackers-win32] What's left?