| From: | Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | "Dann Corbit" <DCorbit(at)connx(dot)com>, "scott(dot)marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)ihs(dot)com>, "Marc G(dot) Fournier" <scrappy(at)hub(dot)org>, "mlw" <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: contrib and licensing |
| Date: | 2003-04-03 04:53:38 |
| Message-ID: | 200304022353.38488.lamar.owen@wgcr.org |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wednesday 02 April 2003 22:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <lamar(dot)owen(at)wgcr(dot)org> writes:
> > <stifles ROTFL>
> > Everyone does realize that on Linux PostgreSQL binaries link against
> > glibc, which is LGPL......
> And your point is?
That everyone is being entirely too picky. Hey, we link against other things,
too. Some aren't LGPL. The readline example is a good one, incidentally:
it's GPL. And its stubs are in the backend, of all places. At least on
Linux.
Gotta watch any 'static builds' then.
> On other Unixoid systems you can link against BSD-license libc code, or
> some-random-proprietary-license code from HP or Sun or whomever. glibc
> doesn't have a monopoly in that sphere. But mlw is offering code that
> will *only* run against a single implementation that is LGPL licensed.
> That makes it effectively LGPL.
One could clean-room reimplement if the demand is enough.
But, if one wants to get picky, let's talk about the license issue of
PL/Python. The PSF looks like a rat's nest.
--
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-03 05:04:33 | Re: contrib and licensing |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2003-04-03 04:46:55 | Re: Detecting corrupted pages earlier |