Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk>
Cc: "'Bruce Momjian'" <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
Date: 1999-10-20 14:34:52
Message-ID: 12586.940430092@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Mount <petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk> writes:
> Just a thought: How does this affect anything placed in the contrib
> directory? If someone writes a tool under the GPL, can it be included
> under the src/contrib directory, or would we fall foul just because it's
> included with our source?

Good question. The GPL contains a clause to the effect that "mere
aggregation" of a GPL'd piece of code in a source distribution with
unrelated pieces of code is OK, even if those other pieces of code
are not GPL'd. But the contrib directory is not exactly unrelated
to the main Postgres distribution, so I'm not sure that we can point
to this clause to justify putting a GPL'd program in contrib. It'd
be a gray area...

I'd be inclined to say "if you want to put your tool under GPL, fine,
but then distributing it is up to you". We don't need to be taking
any legal risks on this point. A safe policy is that everything
distributed by the Postgres group has to carry the same BSD license.

regards, tom lane

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 1999-10-20 14:48:03 Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?
Previous Message Intrac Systems Inc 1999-10-20 13:59:23 Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?