> > Note that while Spread is open source in the sense that "the source is
> > available", it's license is significantly more restrictive than
> > PostgreSQL's:
> > 
> >     http://www.spread.org/license/
> > 
> 
> Interesting.  It looks like a modified version of the old BSD license
> where you are required to mention you are using Spread.  I believe we
> can get that reduced.  (I think Darren already addressed this with
> them.) We certainly are not going to accept software that requires all
> PostgreSQL user sites to mention Spread.
> 

I dont think this is the case.  We don't redistribute spread
from the pg-replication site.  There are links to the down
load area.  I don't think this should be any different if
postgres-r is merged with the main postgresql tree.  If 
Spread is the group communication we choose to use for 
postgresql replication, then I would think some Spread 
information would be in order on the advocacy site, and 
in any set up documentation for replication.

I have spoken to Yair Amir from the Spread camp on 
several occasions, and they are very excited about the
replication project.  I sure it won't be an issue, but 
I will forward this message to him.

Darren



Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:42:45 -0500
<darren@up.hrcoxmail.com>
Re: Big 7.4 items
darren@up.hrcoxmail.com wrote:
> > > Note that while Spread is open source in the sense that "the source is
> > > available", it's license is significantly more restrictive than
> > > PostgreSQL's:
> > > 
> > >     http://www.spread.org/license/
> > > 
> > 
> > Interesting.  It looks like a modified version of the old BSD license
> > where you are required to mention you are using Spread.  I believe we
> > can get that reduced.  (I think Darren already addressed this with
> > them.) We certainly are not going to accept software that requires all
> > PostgreSQL user sites to mention Spread.
> > 
> 
> I dont think this is the case.  We don't redistribute spread
> from the pg-replication site.  There are links to the down
> load area.  I don't think this should be any different if
> postgres-r is merged with the main postgresql tree.  If 
> Spread is the group communication we choose to use for 
> postgresql replication, then I would think some Spread 
> information would be in order on the advocacy site, and 
> in any set up documentation for replication.

Yes, the question is whether we will ship the spread code inside our
tarball?  I doubt we would ever have replication running by default, but
we may want to ship a binary that was replication-enabled.  I am
especially thinking of commerical vendors.  Can you imagine Red Hat DB
being required to mention Spread on their web page?  I don't think that
will fly.

Of course we will want to mention Spread on our web site and in our
documentation, but we don't want to be forced to, and we don't want that
burden to "spread" out to other users.

> I have spoken to Yair Amir from the Spread camp on 
> several occasions, and they are very excited about the
> replication project.  I sure it won't be an issue, but 
> I will forward this message to him.

Good.

-- 
  Bruce Momjian                        |  http://candle.pha.pa.us
  pgman@candle.pha.pa.us               |  (610) 359-1001
  +  If your life is a hard drive,     |  13 Roberts Road
  +  Christ can be your backup.        |  Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

Fri, 13 Dec 2002 15:51:52 -0500 (EST)
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>
Re: Big 7.4 items