Re: LGPL

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: LGPL
Date: 2005-06-15 03:08:41
Message-ID: 27440.1118804921@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

"John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?

Another point of view on this: it's OK to use LGPL code if it's
available on the local platform, so long as we don't *require* it to be
present. It's even safer if the LGPL code is merely one implementation
of an API that has other implementations under different licenses.
For instance I have no fear at all of linking to glibc, and little of
linking to libreadline (the latter because we can also use the BSD
libedit).

If we could not build without libreadline then we would have a very
big problem. And we certainly aren't going to textually incorporate
any new LGPL (or GPL) code into our distribution.

regards, tom lane

In response to

  • LGPL at 2005-06-15 01:53:09 from John Hansen

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John Hansen 2005-06-15 03:14:17 Re: LGPL
Previous Message Tom Lane 2005-06-15 03:00:49 Re: Autovacuum in the backend