Re: LGPL - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Josh Berkus
Subject Re: LGPL
Date
Msg-id 200506150951.07551.josh@agliodbs.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: LGPL  ("John Hansen" <john@geeknet.com.au>)
List pgsql-hackers
John,

> 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?
> 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?

Both of these would be fine as add-ins to be distributed *separately* through 
pgFoundry or even the mirrors if they prove popular.   Bundling them in 
unified distribution binaries with PostgreSQL would be a significant problem. 

You see this in other projects all the time:  "Requriements: ______, which is 
GPL and can be downloaded from __________ ."  We've managed so far to avoid 
needing external libraries which are not standard on most POSIX platforms, 
and it would be nice to keep it that way instead of doing the "component 
easter egg hunt" (which users of Linux multimedia apps are familiar with).

This means that you're unlikely to be able to use glib unless it becomes 
standard on POSIX platforms, and someone makes a Windows port.  Out of 
curiosity, what did you want to use it *for*?

As for a URI type, I don't see the problem with doing that as a PostgreSQL 
add-in downloadable from PGFoundry.  Given the variety of URI 
implementations, I'm not sure we'd want a single URI type as standard anyway.  
According to the FSF's junior licensing maven, building in a GPL data type or 
other plug-in would make *your instance* of PostgreSQL GPL, but so does PL/R 
and PostGIS, so that's nothing new.  It just needs to be distributed 
separately.

FYI, the reason the GPL "linking" issue is vague is that it depends on local 
copyright law, which varies from country to country and in the US from state 
to state.  This is deliberate by the FSF because an agreement which depends 
on local copyright law is stronger in court than one which sets its own 
explicit terms.   If anyone has nuts-and-bolts questions about GPL/LGPL 
issues, I have some friends at the FSF and can get answers from "the horse's 
mouth."

-- 
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Bruce Momjian
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum in the backend
Next
From: Josh Berkus
Date:
Subject: Re: Autovacuum in the backend