* Florian Weimer (fw(at)deneb(dot)enyo(dot)de) wrote:
> * Stephen Frost:
> > Ah, this does sound rather ugly and not something we'd want. The
> > particular library doesn't make a whole heck of alot of difference to me
> > provided it has the general functionality necessary and a compatible
> > license (where 'compatible' in this case really means 'Debian feels it
> > is compatible with the GPL').
> And several (L)GPL-incompatible licensses. It wouldn't surprise me if
> there were a few applications released under licenses which are not
> GPL-compatible which also link to libpq.
I'd be very curious to know of any which are GPL, or especially LGPL,
incompatible. Please provide specifics (especially if they're part of
Debian) of such applications. If there's specific licenses you know of
I'd like to know too since I might be able to check those pretty easily.
Given that libc is LGPL any software under a license incompatible with
that (which seems like it'd be pretty hard to have...) would probably
not be distributable under Debian.
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2007-01-03 15:26:34|
|Subject: Re: Deadline-Based Vacuum Delay|
|Previous:||From: Jim Nasby||Date: 2007-01-03 15:16:41|
|Subject: Re: Added the word TODO in comments|