On Fri, Apr 9, 2010 at 5:51 AM, Greg Stark <gsstark@mit.edu> wrote:
> Linking against as an option isn't nearly as bad since the user
> compiling it can choose whether to include the restricted feature or
> not. That's what we do with readline. However it's not nearly as
> attractive when it restricts what file formats Postgres supports -- it
> means someone might generate backup dump files that they later
> discover they don't have a legal right to read and restore :(
If we only linked against it, we'd leave it up to the user to weigh
the risk as long as we are not aware of any such violation.
Our top priority is to make sure that the project would not be harmed
if one day such a patent showed up. If I understood you correctly,
this is not an issue, even if we included lzf and less again if we
only link against it. The rest is about user education and using lzf
only in pg_dump and not for toasting, we could show a message in
pg_dump if lzf is chosen to make the user aware of the possible
issues.
If we still cannot do this, then what I am asking is: What does the
project need to be able to at least link against such a compression
algorithm? Is it a list of 10, 20, 50 or more other projects using it
or is it a lawyer saying: "There is no patent."? But then, how can we
be sure that the lawyer is right? Or couldn't we include it even if we
had both, because again, we couldn't be sure... ?
Joachim
