To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
Cc: "Merlin Moncure" <merlin.moncure@rcsonline.com>,
	pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: pg_locks view and user locks 
In-reply-to: <200409132136.20025.peter_e@gmx.net> 
References: <6EE64EF3AB31D5448D0007DD34EEB3412A74A8@Herge.rcsinc.local>
	<200409132136.20025.peter_e@gmx.net>
Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
	message dated "Mon, 13 Sep 2004 21:36:19 +0200"
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 16:39:49 -0400
Message-ID: <21071.1095107989@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> That's the whole problem.  I don't think anyone objects to the user lock 
> principle, but as long as it's GPL, we won't support it.  It was 
> probably a mistake to accept this module in the first place.  I believe 
> some people have been trying to get the module relicensed, but that 
> evidently never happened.

I said some time ago that I would pester contrib authors about fixing
license issues, but it still hasn't gotten to the top of my to-do list :-(
AFAIK nothing at all has been done on this score.

If Merlin is hot about contrib/userlock right now, he's welcome to try
to contact the original author and get this dealt with.

The point about not importing documentation from a mislicensed contrib
module is valid IMHO.

			regards, tom lane