Re: Library General Public Licence
От | Bart Samwel |
---|---|
Тема | Re: Library General Public Licence |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 44797470.1020209@samwel.tk обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: Library General Public Licence (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: Library General Public Licence
|
Список | pgsql-odbc |
Tom Lane wrote: > Jim Brown <jimbrown32rb@yahoo.com> writes: >> I wrote a proprietary MS-Windows application (I can >> just hear the groans... sorry) that I hope to sell. It >> uses a backend database, and I like the option of >> using PostgreSQL for that. I need to know clearly what >> I need to do to distribute the psqlODBC driver with my >> app. > > I'm not a lawyer either, but my reading of the LGPL says that you > can distribute an LGPL library along with a proprietary application > that uses the library so long as you > > (1) include the source code of the library (or offer to provide it > on request, but if you're sending out CDs you might as well just > put the source code on to begin with). > > (2) provide the proprietary app in a form that can be re-linked with > a user-modified version of the library, ie, .o files or equivalent. > > Basically what the LGPL is saying is that someone should be able to > change the source code of the library and still use it with your app. > > (1) is certainly no skin off your nose except for a few more MB on > the distribution media. (2) might annoy you, especially if you have > illusions of being able to prevent reverse-engineering of your > executables. My impression of common practice is that no one actually > pays much attention to requirement (2), but it's there in black and white > in the LGPL text. If you want to keep yourself perfectly clean and > aboveboard you should honor it. Fortunately ODBC drivers are decoupled from the actual programs that use them by a standard interface. If I am correct then this implies that (2) is always met for psqlODBC. Cheers, Bart
В списке pgsql-odbc по дате отправления: