Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

Milan Zamazal wrote:

> >>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
>
> TL> The GPL does restrict the conditions under which GPL'd code can
> TL> be distributed; in particular it can't be distributed as part of
> TL> a program that is not all GPL'd (more or less --- I have not
> TL> read the terms lately). So, because we use BSD license rather
> TL> than GNU, we cannot *include in our distribution* any library
> TL> that is under GPL.
>
> [All IMHO, I'm not a lawyer etc. too.]
>
> I think that from the point of GPL there is basically no problem with
> PostgreSQL license, since it contains no restriction incompatible with
> GPL.
>
> The situation with Aladdin Ghostscript is quite different, it is under
> non-free license, its license is in conflict with GPL and so it clearly
> can't use GPLed code.
>
> However, including GPLed code into PostgreSQL, though I think it's fully
> legal, means that third party can't take the PostgreSQL as a whole and
> distribute it under license violating GPL, e.g. as a proprietary product
> without available sources. If it is important for you to support *more*
> restrictive licensing than GPL, then you should avoid inclusion of GPLed
> code into PostgreSQL.

Please clear this up one way or another.
I was looking to include PostgreSQL into my companies proprietary software
package.
I was going to make all of the arrangements to follow the PostreSQL
Copyright.
I can not include source code of my companies software, since it is to
copyrighted to my company.

Please list the steps i would need to comply with PostgreSQL's Copyright.
(I was under the impression that the Copyright from the Regents of U of CA
was it)
List any modules that is would need to include/execlude to avoid voilating
other Copyrights used by PostgreSQL.

Your scaring me guys.

P.S.

You guys have a great product from what i have seen so far. I am realy
looking forward to release 7.

John Ingram
Senior Software Engineer

>
>
> Milan Zamazal