Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility
От | Bill Studenmund |
---|---|
Тема | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility |
Дата | |
Msg-id | Pine.NEB.4.33.0202081219520.10078-100000@vespasia.home-net.internetconnect.net обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: contrib/pg_filedump - PostgreSQL File Dump Utility (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Список | pgsql-patches |
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Tom Lane wrote: > I'd kinda like to see us go back to the contributors and get them > all relicensed as BSD (or at the very least LGPL). I think that > distributing these as we do is only marginally legit --- it's > debatable whether this is "mere aggregation" under the terms > of the GPL, given that the contrib modules are fairly closely > bound to the rest of the distribution. I think the big question is, "does the main distribution (backend, libpq, etc.) depend on the GPL'd bits being there?" As I think the anser is no, then there is no GPL issue. The GPL'd code can be tied to non-GPL'd code in other programs. As another example, it is specifically ok for the *BSDs to ship GPL'd kernel modules, as the bound result (dynamic linking) doesn't get distributed. A niggle might be if libpq or one of the other libraries had a GPL-incompatable license (like BSD with advertizing clause) and was statically linked into a binary produced from contrib. Such a resulting binary would probably be in the you-can't-distribute category. But the COPYRIGHT at the top of the source tree doesn't have an advertizing clause, so this problem really isn't. :-) Take care, Bill
В списке pgsql-patches по дате отправления: