Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: Library General Public Licence

From: markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
To: "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: "Bart Samwel" <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk>,"Jim Brown" <jimbrown32rb(at)yahoo(dot)com>, pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Library General Public Licence
Date: 2006-05-28 23:42:27
Message-ID: 18473.24.91.171.78.1148859747.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
> Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk> writes:
>> Fortunately ODBC drivers are decoupled from the actual programs that use
>> them by a standard interface. If I am correct then this implies that (2)
>> is always met for psqlODBC.
>
> Yeah.  I think actually (2) is met for any ordinary shared library;
> it's only if you want to static-link an LGPL library that it becomes
> an issue.  The LGPL was drafted before dynamic linking became the norm,
> and so it doesn't really mention the point.

If I understand the supporting documents to the GPL, I think you are
mistaken. The GPL defines a derived work as within the same process space,
so, RMS by defining "derived work" within the context of GPL has also
extended what the GPL is intended to cover. Static or dynamic linking
doesn't make a difference, the code is intimately linked when the program
is run.

The only way to avoid touching GPL is a call gate or TCP/IP type
mechanism. That's why all libraries should be LGPL.



In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Gera Mel HandumonDate: 2006-05-29 00:46:27
Subject: Inserting Picture to Bytea
Previous:From: Elvis HenrĂ­quezDate: 2006-05-28 19:29:16
Subject: PostgreSQL 8.1.4 ODBC for Windows

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group