Re: LGPL

"John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Right,... Let me be more specific then,....

> What are your thoughts on using the glib
> (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.2/glib/index.html) library for
> some functionality in pg?

Right offhand that seems like a nonstarter. Exactly how would you use
it in a way that didn't turn it into a required component? It looks
to me like a collection of bits that are pretty useful but also very
low-level, and hence not easily separable.

> Additionally,. I came across this fine library
> (http://home.gna.org/uri/uri.en.html) which I'd like to use as a base
> for a new URI type, unfortunately it's GPL, so based on the above I'm
> guessing using it as is, is out of the question?

Sure, you can do whatever you like with that ... as long as you're not
expecting us to distribute the combined code as part of Postgres.

It's worth reiterating here that GPL/LGPL code plus BSD code is no
problem whatever for local development and use. It's only if you want
to redistribute the result that you have to worry about what the
licenses require. Since Postgres is a BSD-license project, *we* are not
going to redistribute any GPL or LGPL code, nor any code that
fundamentally depends on code that is so licensed. But you can pretty
much do what you like in your own sandbox. In particular, you could
develop a datatype that requires a GPL/LGPL library, and then distribute
that code by itself as GPL/LGPL, and neither the GPL nor BSD camps would
have any problem with that. Just don't expect us to put such code in a
BSD distribution ...

regards, tom lane