Thomas Hallgren wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Thomas Hallgren <thomas@tada.se> writes:
>>
>>> Why to you persist talking about licensing issues with PL/Java? There
>>> are none. PL/Java builds and runs just fine with gcj and the above
>>> statement is completely false.
>>>
>>
>> Um ... if you use it with gcj, there may or may not be any licensing
>> problems (please recall we are trying to be a BSD-only project, not a
>> BSD-and-LGPL project),
> You have no problems using gcc, gnu-make, etc. What's the difference?
Well there is a couple of literal differences.
gcc, gnu-make are irrelevant. What is relevant is libc which is LGPL.
Gcj IS GPL, not LGPL :( it just has an exception clause
Keep in mind that that there are all kinds of oddities when mixing
licenses. Is Sun's JVM GPL compatible? If not, the plJava can't use it.
What happens when the FSF inevitably removes the license clause and
makes it pure GPL?
Now all of this being said, I doubt there is actually an issue here because:
It doesn't HAVE TO BE BUILT, it is not a derivative product.
It doesn't ship with the JVM which means it is up to the user to break
the license not the PostgreSQL project...
However that last one is bad mojo :(
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
>
>> but what of people who use some other JVM?
>> It's not like gcj works for everyone yet.
>>
>>
> What of them? If they decide to use another JVM, well, then let them. I
> don't see where that becomes a licensing problem from PostgreSQL.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas Hallgren
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240 Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL
solutionssince 1997 http://www.commandprompt.com/
