Thread: GPL Licensed Files in 8.1.4
PostgreSQL 8.1.4 appears to have 2 GPL licensed files according to licenses embedded in the source. In both cases, the files have had a history of discussion within the PostgreSQL forums. I'm hoping, through this question, to find more concrete information that the GPL code is really approved to be licensed under the PostgreSQL BSD license or to understand if there is a plan to update the source to remove the GPL reference.
The 2 files are:
- user_lock code from Massimo Dal Zotto
- clean_pending.pl from Steve Singer, Navtech Systems
I noticed that Massimo Zotto posted a forum answer back in 2001 (: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-08/msg01089.php) but his statement that the file would be updated to non-GPL text seems to not have been completed. Is there any other authorization or correspondence stating his approval that the user_lock code is licensed to the PostgreSQL project as BSD?
There was also a separate forum entry (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00350.php) on clean_pending.pl where it was speculated that the GPL text was added in error since the other source files in this directory are BSD. Has Steve Singer forwarded an authorization that this file is licensed to the PostgreSQL project as BSD?
Thank you,
Charles Comiskey
Tivoli Software
IBM Software Group
comiskey@us.ibm.com
919.224.1223 or TL 687-1223
Am Mittwoch, 31. Mai 2006 16:50 schrieb Charles Comiskey: > PostgreSQL 8.1.4 appears to have 2 GPL licensed files according to > licenses embedded in the source. In both cases, the files have had a > history of discussion within the PostgreSQL forums. I'm hoping, through > this question, to find more concrete information that the GPL code is > really approved to be licensed under the PostgreSQL BSD license The GPL-licensed files are GPL-licensed. > or to > understand if there is a plan to update the source to remove the GPL > reference. Yes, but that will entail removing or rewriting the code or the author(s) giving permission to change the license, not just removing the reference. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
On Wed, May 31, 2006 at 10:50:46AM -0400, Charles Comiskey wrote:
> PostgreSQL 8.1.4 appears to have 2 GPL licensed files according to
> licenses embedded in the source. In both cases, the files have had a
I should like to point out (in addition to Peter E's comments) that
these are both files in contrib/. Nothing in the main code tree is GPL,
as far as I know, and nobody that I know of expects a complete
PostgreSQL installation to include everything in contrib/
At the same time, it strikes me that at least the userlock stuff, and
maybe dbmirror as well, are candidates for pgfoundry rather than
contrib/
A
--
Andrew Sullivan | ajs@crankycanuck.ca
Users never remark, "Wow, this software may be buggy and hard
to use, but at least there is a lot of code underneath."
--Damien Katz
Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes:
> At the same time, it strikes me that at least the userlock stuff, and
> maybe dbmirror as well, are candidates for pgfoundry rather than
> contrib/
We'd already agreed to move dbmirror to pgfoundry, but it just didn't
get done for 8.1. I had not thought of pgfoundry as a reasonable
solution for userlock, but maybe that's the best thing to do with it.
A better idea would be to contact the module authors and get them to
relicense, but that might be hard. Dal Zotto at least hasn't been
seen on these lists for a long time :-(
regards, tom lane
Tom Lane wrote: > Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: > > At the same time, it strikes me that at least the userlock stuff, and > > maybe dbmirror as well, are candidates for pgfoundry rather than > > contrib/ > > We'd already agreed to move dbmirror to pgfoundry, but it just didn't > get done for 8.1. I had not thought of pgfoundry as a reasonable > solution for userlock, but maybe that's the best thing to do with it. > > A better idea would be to contact the module authors and get them to > relicense, but that might be hard. Dal Zotto at least hasn't been > seen on these lists for a long time :-( Here is the most recent feedback we have from Massimo: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-08/msg01001.php > Regarding the licencing of the code, I always release my code under GPL, > which is the licence I prefer, but my code in the backend is obviously > released under the original postgres licence. Since the module is loaded > dynamically and not linked into the backend I don't see a problem here. > If the licence becomes a problem I can easily change it, but I prefer the > GPL if possible. -- Bruce Momjian http://candle.pha.pa.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +
Newbie here .. RH EL4 Apache 2.0.48 Apologies if this isn't the right place for this post! Trying to get PHP5 support running in PG 8.1.4 and regardless that I have postgresql-libs-8.1.4-1PGDG.i686.rpm loaded and freshened on the machine, when I try to bring up httpd, it complains that libpq.so.4 isn't loaded. I believe it lives in the above lib - am I not defining where it lives properly maybe? (And where should a post like this go if this isn't the right group??) I don't know if this an apache or a postgres problem!) tia! Dave
Dave Felt <felt@caltech.edu> writes:
> Trying to get PHP5 support running in PG 8.1.4 and regardless that I
> have postgresql-libs-8.1.4-1PGDG.i686.rpm loaded and freshened on the
> machine, when I try to bring up httpd, it complains that libpq.so.4
> isn't loaded.
libpq.so.4 definitely is in that RPM. Maybe you need to run ldconfig?
That's supposed to be run automagically when the RPM is installed, but
maybe it got missed ...
regards, tom lane
On 6/7/2006 4:34 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Andrew Sullivan <ajs@crankycanuck.ca> writes: >> > At the same time, it strikes me that at least the userlock stuff, and >> > maybe dbmirror as well, are candidates for pgfoundry rather than >> > contrib/ >> >> We'd already agreed to move dbmirror to pgfoundry, but it just didn't >> get done for 8.1. I had not thought of pgfoundry as a reasonable >> solution for userlock, but maybe that's the best thing to do with it. >> >> A better idea would be to contact the module authors and get them to >> relicense, but that might be hard. Dal Zotto at least hasn't been >> seen on these lists for a long time :-( > > Here is the most recent feedback we have from Massimo: > > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-08/msg01001.php > > > Regarding the licencing of the code, I always release my code under GPL, > > which is the licence I prefer, but my code in the backend is obviously > > released under the original postgres licence. Since the module is loaded > > dynamically and not linked into the backend I don't see a problem here. > > If the licence becomes a problem I can easily change it, but I prefer the > > GPL if possible. > Which means thus far he did not agree to the license change. Can we just move the stuff over to pgfoundry and be done with it? Jan -- #======================================================================# # It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. # # Let's break this rule - forgive me. # #================================================== JanWieck@Yahoo.com #
FYI, getting back to you, both /contrib/userlock and /contrib/dbmirror were removed from the 8.2 source tree. They have been moved to pgfoundry. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Charles Comiskey wrote: > PostgreSQL 8.1.4 appears to have 2 GPL licensed files according to > licenses embedded in the source. In both cases, the files have had a > history of discussion within the PostgreSQL forums. I'm hoping, through > this question, to find more concrete information that the GPL code is > really approved to be licensed under the PostgreSQL BSD license or to > understand if there is a plan to update the source to remove the GPL > reference. > > The 2 files are: > - user_lock code from Massimo Dal Zotto > - clean_pending.pl from Steve Singer, Navtech Systems > > I noticed that Massimo Zotto posted a forum answer back in 2001 (: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2001-08/msg01089.php) but his > statement that the file would be updated to non-GPL text seems to not have > been completed. Is there any other authorization or correspondence > stating his approval that the user_lock code is licensed to the PostgreSQL > project as BSD? > > There was also a separate forum entry > (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-06/msg00350.php) on > clean_pending.pl where it was speculated that the GPL text was added in > error since the other source files in this directory are BSD. Has Steve > Singer forwarded an authorization that this file is licensed to the > PostgreSQL project as BSD? > > Thank you, > > Charles Comiskey > Tivoli Software > IBM Software Group > comiskey@us.ibm.com > 919.224.1223 or TL 687-1223 -- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com + If your life is a hard drive, Christ can be your backup. +