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

Re: Library General Public Licence

From: markw(at)mohawksoft(dot)com
To: "Marc Herbert" <Marc(dot)Herbert(at)continuent(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Library General Public Licence
Date: 2006-05-29 12:33:59
Message-ID: 18499.24.91.171.78.1148906039.squirrel@mail.mohawksoft.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
> Jim Brown <jimbrown32rb(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
>
>> Responding to Mark's point, my app is a self-contained
>> executable that was coded to a standard interface, and
>> can be dynamically connected to any ANSI-SQL compliant
>> ODBC driver. It cannot be considered a derivative work
>> of any particular library in any sense. It can link to
>> any library that implements the interface. Mark, I
>> think that your argument would apply if I had somehow
>> coded to a particular library and my app would not
>> function without that particular library.
>
> Agreed. That could be different if one can demonstrate that your
> application cannot work with any other DB than postgreSQL.

No, not really important. Regardless, the definition of "derived" product,
as used in the GPL is publically known and that standard would be used in
court.

>
>
>> But I do want to provide a copy of plsqlodbc.dll in my
>> installation program as a default driver, so I'm
>> interested in what is required to provide that copy.
>
> For obvious practical reasons, almost all free software pieces do not
> care about what sits next to them on the same CD, same network
> directory, same USB key or whatever; it's a surprinsingly common
> misconception.

In the GPL, "mere aggregation" is clearly set out as non-infringing.

> Since ages magazines have been selling CDs
> bundling/mixing software pieces with all different kinds of licences
> (free and not) without any legal issue.  Serious people have more
> important stuff to care than to check if you are shipping one
> proprietary CD + one free software CD versus only one DVD bundling the
> two.
>
> The only thing that really matters is linking. Non-technical people
> may be diverted to the irrelevant distribution bundling issue because
> it is easier to understand and closer to what happens with material
> goods.

Linking or incorporation.

>
> That does not mean you can distribute any piece of free software in
> any way you like; it just means that bundling with or without your
> proprietary software is irrelevant.

usually, but check out
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
"Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?"

"If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins
are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no
requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are
no special requirements."

"If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls
to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single
program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program
and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in
with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can
resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's
license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program."


In response to

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Ludek FinstrleDate: 2006-05-29 19:46:24
Subject: Re: PostgreSQL 8.1.4 ODBC for Windows
Previous:From: Marc HerbertDate: 2006-05-29 10:17:15
Subject: Re: Library General Public Licence

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