Re: LGPL

On 6/18/05, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres
> in a completely non-GPL environment.  If that were not so then I think
> we'd have some license issues.  But the fact that building PG in a
> GPL-ized environment creates a GPL-ized binary is not a problem from my
> point of view.  You've already bought into the GPL if you're using that
> environment.

Put another way: Linking to a GPLed library creates a gpled result,
but being GPLed is completely and totally irrelevant to *users*
because the GPL places no restrictions on use whatsoever.

... But is it really the case that PostgreSQL developers are being
paid to code because PG is BSDed and proprietary forks are possible?
... There is no harm in being BSDed, but I question that the users of
PostgreSQL are gaining enough advantage that there needs to be so much
paranoia about making sure that the code is as easy as possible to
make propritary forks of...