From: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Mikheev, Vadim" <vmikheev(at)SECTORBASE(dot)COM> |
Cc: | Massimo Dal Zotto <dz(at)cs(dot)unitn(dot)it>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: User locks code |
Date: | 2001-08-23 22:55:24 |
Message-ID: | 200108232255.f7NMtO814879@candle.pha.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
> > > If the licence becomes a problem I can easily change it,
> > > but I prefer the GPL if possible.
> >
> > We just wanted to make sure the backend changes were not
> > under the GPL.
>
> No, Bruce - backend part of code is useless without interface
> functions and I wonder doesn't GPL-ed interface implementation
> prevent using of user-locks in *commercial* applications.
> For example, one could use user-locks for processing incoming
> orders by multiple operators:
> select * from orders where user_lock(orders.oid) = 1 LIMIT 1
> - so each operator would lock one order for processing and
> operators wouldn't block each other. So, could such
> application be commercial with current licence of
> user_lock()? (Sorry, I'm not licence guru.)
I assume any code that uses contrib/userlock has to be GPL'ed, meaning
it can be used for commercial purposes but can't be sold as binary-only,
and actually can't be sold for much because you have to make the code
available for near-zero cost.
--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-08-23 23:01:16 | RE: User locks code |
Previous Message | Mikheev, Vadim | 2001-08-23 22:30:11 | RE: User locks code |