Re: LGPL

Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] Wrote:
> "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > Right,... Let me be more specific then,....
>
> > What are your thoughts on using the glib
> > (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.2/glib/index.html)
> library for
> > some functionality in pg?
>
> Right offhand that seems like a nonstarter. Exactly how
> would you use it in a way that didn't turn it into a required
> component? It looks to me like a collection of bits that are
> pretty useful but also very low-level, and hence not easily separable.

K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
LGPL libraries but not GPL.

>
> > Additionally,. I came across this fine library
> > (http://home.gna.org/uri/uri.en.html) which I'd like to use
> as a base
> > for a new URI type, unfortunately it's GPL, so based on the
> above I'm
> > guessing using it as is, is out of the question?
>
> Sure, you can do whatever you like with that ... as long as
> you're not expecting us to distribute the combined code as
> part of Postgres.
>
> It's worth reiterating here that GPL/LGPL code plus BSD code
> is no problem whatever for local development and use. It's
> only if you want to redistribute the result that you have to
> worry about what the licenses require. Since Postgres is a
> BSD-license project, *we* are not going to redistribute any
> GPL or LGPL code, nor any code that fundamentally depends on
> code that is so licensed. But you can pretty much do what
> you like in your own sandbox. In particular, you could
> develop a datatype that requires a GPL/LGPL library, and then
> distribute that code by itself as GPL/LGPL, and neither the
> GPL nor BSD camps would have any problem with that. Just
> don't expect us to put such code in a BSD distribution ...

That's what I was afraid of....

>
> regards, tom lane
>
>

... John

John Hansen wrote:
> Tom Lane [mailto:tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us] Wrote:
> > "John Hansen" <john(at)geeknet(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> > > Right,... Let me be more specific then,....
> >
> > > What are your thoughts on using the glib
> > > (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.2/glib/index.html)
> > library for
> > > some functionality in pg?
> >
> > Right offhand that seems like a nonstarter. Exactly how
> > would you use it in a way that didn't turn it into a required
> > component? It looks to me like a collection of bits that are
> > pretty useful but also very low-level, and hence not easily separable.
>
> K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
> LGPL libraries but not GPL.

I think the answer isn't clear on that one.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:

> > K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
> > LGPL libraries but not GPL.
>
> I think the answer isn't clear on that one.

If that is not clear then what is the difference between a LGPL lib and a
GPL one? To copy code from said lib into pg could never be allowed, but
just linking to it surely can not be a problem.

LGPL libs are used all over by all kinds of closed sorce applications and
that's the whole idea of making things (like glib) into LGPL instead of
GPL. For example Acrobat Reader 7 for unix uses GTK+ and it is LGPL.
Acrobat Reader surely do require GTK+.

--
/Dennis Björklund

Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> > > K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
> > > LGPL libraries but not GPL.
> >
> > I think the answer isn't clear on that one.
>
> If that is not clear then what is the difference between a LGPL lib and a
> GPL one? To copy code from said lib into pg could never be allowed, but
> just linking to it surely can not be a problem.
>
> LGPL libs are used all over by all kinds of closed sorce applications and
> that's the whole idea of making things (like glib) into LGPL instead of
> GPL. For example Acrobat Reader 7 for unix uses GTK+ and it is LGPL.
> Acrobat Reader surely do require GTK+.

Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
code if we can help it.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073

>>LGPL libs are used all over by all kinds of closed sorce applications and
>>that's the whole idea of making things (like glib) into LGPL instead of
>>GPL. For example Acrobat Reader 7 for unix uses GTK+ and it is LGPL.
>>Acrobat Reader surely do require GTK+.
>
>
> Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
> code if we can help it.

It can be argued that the LGPL is a "better" license than the GPL or
BSD. For example:

GPL module: programmer releases, second programmer picks up, must also
release under the gpl. If it is a derivative product that product must
be under the GPL. All changes must be released back.

BSD: programmer releases, second programmer can steal it, legally and
do pretty much anything he wants with it, including close source it
and not give changes back.

LGPL: programmer releases, second programmer picks up, must submit
changes back as LGPL BUT second programmer can close source products
around the LGPL code.

LGPL is what makes people be able to create closed source apps on linux
that are derived from gcc.

My understanding is that if libc on Linux was GPL (instead of LGPL) then
PostgreSQL would not legally be able to be compiled on the platform
without it too being GPL.

That is one of the reason why the major corps solidified on Gnome.
Because if you make a Gnome app you don't HAVE to give it away. If
you make a KDE app, you do (Unless you purchase QT).

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>

--
Your PostgreSQL solutions company - Command Prompt, Inc. 1.800.492.2240
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Programming, 24x7 support
Managed Services, Shared and Dedicated Hosting
Co-Authors: plPHP, plPerlNG - http://www.commandprompt.com/

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
>code if we can help it.
>
>
>

License issues aside, should we not be trying to avoid adding
dependencies on third party libraries, especially those that are not
standard on most operating systems? Also bear in mind that any required
library would need to be supported on Windows as well as on *nix.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
> >code if we can help it.
> >
> >
> >
>
> License issues aside, should we not be trying to avoid adding
> dependencies on third party libraries, especially those that are not
> standard on most operating systems? Also bear in mind that any required
> library would need to be supported on Windows as well as on *nix.

Yep, that's an issue too.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073