Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >>> At that point, psql becomes GPL, no question.
> >>
> >> Which means it's not happening, no?
>
> > To clearify, I meant the psql binary becomes GPL.
>
> There is no such thing as "the binary becomes GPL". GPL applies to
> the source code.
OK.
> > When we build psql with readline, which is our default on many
> > platforms, we are already be GPL'ing psql, at least according to the
> > copyright holders, FSF.
>
> No, we are NOT doing that, not even according to FSF. Our usage of
> a pre-installed readline library falls under this exception in the
> standard GPL terms:
>
> However, as a
> special exception, the source code distributed need not include
> anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
> form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
> operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
> itself accompanies the executable.
>
> When we link to a readline library that is normally present on the
> target system, we do not become covered by the GPL, because of this
> exception. But shipping readline in our package would be a flat
> violation of the GPL unless we are willing to relicense.
Interesting, but that phrase is for what you need to distribute for an
already-GPL source code. See the "GPL-related disputes" section:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gpl
and an old email from me on the topic:
http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-general/2003-08/msg01811.php
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
359-1001+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square,
Pennsylvania19073
