From: | Bill Studenmund <wrstuden(at)netbsd(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Patrick Macdonald <patrickm(at)redhat(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, <pgsql-patches(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
Date: | 2002-02-08 20:32:48 |
Message-ID: | Pine.NEB.4.33.0202081219520.10078-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote:
> I'd kinda like to see us go back to the contributors and get them
> all relicensed as BSD (or at the very least LGPL). I think that
> distributing these as we do is only marginally legit --- it's
> debatable whether this is "mere aggregation" under the terms
> of the GPL, given that the contrib modules are fairly closely
> bound to the rest of the distribution.
I think the big question is, "does the main distribution (backend, libpq,
etc.) depend on the GPL'd bits being there?" As I think the anser is no,
then there is no GPL issue. The GPL'd code can be tied to non-GPL'd code
in other programs. As another example, it is specifically ok for the *BSDs
to ship GPL'd kernel modules, as the bound result (dynamic linking)
doesn't get distributed.
A niggle might be if libpq or one of the other libraries had a
GPL-incompatable license (like BSD with advertizing clause) and was
statically linked into a binary produced from contrib. Such a resulting
binary would probably be in the you-can't-distribute category. But the
COPYRIGHT at the top of the source tree doesn't have an advertizing
clause, so this problem really isn't. :-)
Take care,
Bill
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bill Studenmund | 2002-02-08 20:38:23 | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
Previous Message | Russell Black | 2002-02-08 19:19:59 | JDBC |