Re: contrib and licensing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

> mlw wrote:
>>
>> Jan Wieck wrote:
>> >[...]
>> >screen? We have a pure BSD alternative that we could even ship with
>> >our distro, time to retire the libreadline hooks.
>> >
>> >
>> I certainly didn't want to open up this can of worms, that's for sure.
>>
>> I have an amount of code that is LGPL, I would rather use it than
>> write the bits again or try to extract them from the whole.  The
>> actual extension would be BSD, but it would need to link with my
>> library. I made the library LGPL (from GPL) for the PHP group who have
>> similar restrictions.
>>
>> Thus this discussion.
>
> If it is "your" library as you've said multiple times now, there is
> nothing that can stop you from relicensing it. Give me one good reason
> why you have to keep your library under the LGPL, or better why it
> cannot be relicensed under BSD.

I do not want to get in to a "my license theology is better or more correct
than yours" discussion.  Can we not do that? I have chosen to make the
library open source and LGPL. Respect that. I respect that the PG group
wants BSD, and everything that I would contribute to PG will be BSD.

This issue is the requirement of a third party LGPL library. Ignore for the
moment that it is mine.

If I find a wiz-bang library that allows me to do something cool very
easily, and I write a some code that would be good for postgresql's contrib,
are you saying that it would not be usable because of the requirement of the
library that is not included on standard system installations?


>
>> I don't know what the answer is, but to say "NO LGPL" seems a bit
>> extream, especially if you already have such dependencies. Then if you
>> conclude you do allow LGPL libraries, but then only allow some
>> libraries, not all, then what is the criteria for choosing which
>> libraries get blessed. Is it purely "popularity?"
>
> Not more extreme than "I am the only true license, you shall not have
> any other licenses beside me", which is my personal interpretation of
> the entire FSF attempt.

Let's not bring this into an argument about BSD vs [L]GPL, it isn't about that.

>
>> Do you guys really think that a contrib function should not be allowed
>> to require code which may not be on a common UNIX/BSD/Linux box?
>
> Your library does appear in what Unix distributions? And in which of
> them is it installed by default like the libreadline? Yes, that
> certainly has to do with popularity.

Did the tools required to build PostgreSQL *always* come standard on systems?
Could I currently build all the contrib directories on a RH 6.2 system
without any extra libraries?

The issue is:
Is the requirement of an LGPL library that is more than likely not already
on your system a disqualification for a contrib function?

This is NOT a BSD vs [L]GPL argument, so lets not make it one. The actual
code for the function *will* be BSD or any license you want.