Re: LGPL

Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] Wrote:
> "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.

K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
LGPL libraries but not GPL.

>
> > 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 ...

That's what I was afraid of....

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

... John