Re: contrib and licensing

mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> If it won't work without your library then there's not much point in
>> putting it into contrib. Might as well just put it in your library
>> and distribute same as you have been doing.
>>
> I'm a little put off by this attitude, are you saying there are no LGPL
> dependencies in PostgreSQL or /contrib?

> If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.

The intention is that the entire distribution, including contrib, be under
straight BSD license. This is a real objective --- we're not there yet,
mainly because it's not being pursued vigorously with regard to the
contrib modules already in place, but we think it is a valuable way of
minimizing confusion.

We have no problem at all with offering gborg project space to LGPL or
GPL-licensed code; it's just that we don't want it in the core
distribution, so that people don't have to hunt-and-peck through the
distro to see which parts are under which license.

Although you indicated willingness to provide the SOAP code per se as
BSD license, it seems to me that this is rather pointless if it can't
be used without an LGPL'd associated library. Someone who wanted a
pure-BSD setup would still be unable to use the code. The SOAP code
plus underlying library would be a more sensible distribution unit,
and as such you might as well make it all LGPL.

Of course, if you wanted to make it all BSD and put the whole mess in
contrib, we'd be open to that idea ...

regards, tom lane