Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

>>>>> "TL" == Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:

TL> The GPL does restrict the conditions under which GPL'd code can
TL> be distributed; in particular it can't be distributed as part of
TL> a program that is not all GPL'd (more or less --- I have not
TL> read the terms lately). So, because we use BSD license rather
TL> than GNU, we cannot *include in our distribution* any library
TL> that is under GPL.

[All IMHO, I'm not a lawyer etc. too.]

I think that from the point of GPL there is basically no problem with
PostgreSQL license, since it contains no restriction incompatible with
GPL.

The situation with Aladdin Ghostscript is quite different, it is under
non-free license, its license is in conflict with GPL and so it clearly
can't use GPLed code.

However, including GPLed code into PostgreSQL, though I think it's fully
legal, means that third party can't take the PostgreSQL as a whole and
distribute it under license violating GPL, e.g. as a proprietary product
without available sources. If it is important for you to support *more*
restrictive licensing than GPL, then you should avoid inclusion of GPLed
code into PostgreSQL.

Milan Zamazal