| From: | listas(at)lozano(dot)eti(dot)br |
|---|---|
| To: | "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, Radu-Adrian Popescu <radu(dot)popescu(at)aldratech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Doug Quale <quale1(at)charter(dot)net>, <pgsql-admin(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: License for PostgreSQL for commercial purpose |
| Date: | 2004-03-27 03:12:23 |
| Message-ID: | 20040327031223.A51D01A8741@smtp.infolink.com.br |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-admin |
Hi,
> > | The Postgres license is a free software license that is GPL
> > | compatible.
> >
> > Where GPL compatible means (possibly among other things) that I can get
> > a BSD-licensed Postgresql and turn it into a GPL-licensed MyPostgresql ?
> >
> No, it means you can distribute the two together like on a redhat CD
> without worrying about conflicting licenses.
If I understand the licenses correctly, the point about being GPL-compatible is
not putting everything on a CD. It's linking gpl code with non-gpl code. Say, I
create a command-based dump utility for PostgreSQL (and so links the pgsql
clientlibrary) but use the GNU Readline library for command-listory (which is
gpl'ed). If the PostgreSQL license wasn't compatible, I would bot be able to
link the Readline library into my executable.
[]s, Fernando Lozano
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Murthy Kambhampaty | 2004-03-27 04:18:52 | Re: [Retrieved]RE: backup and recovery |
| Previous Message | Sam Barnett-Cormack | 2004-03-27 02:58:24 | Re: postgres copy command very slow. |