From: | Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Brook Milligan <brook(at)biology(dot)nmsu(dot)edu> |
Cc: | tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us, petermount(at)it(dot)maidstone(dot)gov(dot)uk, pgsql-hackers(at)postgreSQL(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? |
Date: | 1999-10-20 15:42:33 |
Message-ID: | 199910201542.LAA01184@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> 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...
>
> The problem only comes if I, for example, want to distribute all of
> postgresql (contrib included) in a non-source (i.e., proprietary) way.
> That is fine if contrib includes no GPL code; if it does, I need to
> distribute the code for that portion only. Thus, if we want to
> maintain as broad a potential as possible (including non-source
> distributions) we need to encourage adoption of the BSD license for
> all source.
But Alladin Ghostscript is distributed in source form. This GPL legal
stuff is a terrible hassle.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-20 15:57:24 | Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 1999-10-20 15:38:00 | Planning final assault on query length limits |