Re: contrib and licensing - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: contrib and licensing
Date
Msg-id 28820.1049385266@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: contrib and licensing  (pgsql@mohawksoft.com)
Responses Re: contrib and licensing  (pgsql@mohawksoft.com)
Re: contrib and licensing  (Kevin Brown <kevin@sysexperts.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
pgsql@mohawksoft.com writes:
> 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?

The issue here is whether PG's contrib directory is the most appropriate
distribution mechanism for such code.  There are at least two other
paths for distribution of PG add-ons: you can make a gborg project, or
you can distribute the add-on along with the wiz-bang library it depends
on (assuming you can interest the developers of libwizbang, which in
this case is presumably not a problem).  In either of those cases
there's no problem at all with LGPL or GPL license terms.

We have taken a policy decision to keep the PG core distribution
(including contrib) straight BSD license --- and in my mind that
definitely includes not depending on any outside functionality that is
both (a) essential and (b) not available anywhere as BSD-license code.
It should be possible to build a PG installation that is pure BSD.
Whether people actually choose to do so is not the point.
        regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: pgsql@mohawksoft.com
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib and licensing
Next
From: Jan Wieck
Date:
Subject: Re: contrib and licensing