Re: contrib and licensing

On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, Marc G. Fournier wrote:

> On Wed, 2 Apr 2003, mlw wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >
> > >mlw <pgsql(at)mohawksoft(dot)com> writes:
> > >
> > >
> > >>I know nothing in contrib should be GPL, I have no problem with that.
> > >>The question is the requirement of a GPL library to build a contrib project.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >>My SOAP/XML function will probably require my LGPL library as there is a
> > >>lot of code I have written that I would need to implement it.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >If it won't work without your library then there's not much point in
> > >putting it into contrib. Might as well just put it in your library
> > >and distribute same as you have been doing.
> > >
> > >
> > I'm a little put off by this attitude, are you saying there are no LGPL
> > dependencies in PostgreSQL or /contrib?
>
> In fact, yes ... or, at least, if there are any left in /contrib, its only
> because we haven't moved them to gborg yet ...

a program in /contrib linking to an LGPL lib has never been an issue.
Linking to LGPL libs doesn't encumber the software linking to it.

> > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised.
>
> The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can make it ... its
> never been kept a secret ...

True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.