Re: LGPL

What about GPL ?
I assume that's out of the question!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:59 AM
> To: John Hansen
> Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LGPL
>
>
> We already do ... libreadline ...
>
> On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, John Hansen wrote:
>
> > Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
> >
> > ... John
> >
> > ---------------------------(end of
> > broadcast)---------------------------
> > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> so that your
> > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> >
> >
> >
>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy
> ICQ: 7615664
>
>

John Hansen wrote:
> What about GPL ?
> I assume that's out of the question!

If we add some GPL code, the entire binary becomes GPL, and that
prevents closed-source commercial versions from being produced.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:scrappy(at)postgresql(dot)org]
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:59 AM
> > To: John Hansen
> > Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LGPL
> >
> >
> > We already do ... libreadline ...
> >
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, John Hansen wrote:
> >
> > > Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
> > >
> > > ... John
> > >
> > > ---------------------------(end of
> > > broadcast)---------------------------
> > > TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
> > > subscribe-nomail command to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
> > so that your
> > > message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > ----
> > Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services
> > (http://www.hub.org)
> > Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy
> > ICQ: 7615664
> >
> >
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

--
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

Bruce Momjian wrote:

>John Hansen wrote:
>
>
>>What about GPL ?
>>I assume that's out of the question!
>>
>>
>
>If we add some GPL code, the entire binary becomes GPL, and that
>prevents closed-source commercial versions from being produced.
>
>
>

When I went searching for some code to make a directory path in initdb,
I carefully avoided all the GPL versions, which is why I picked the code
from NetBSD. Anyone taking code from elsewhere to use in PostgreSQL
should a) acknowledge the source and b) be aware of this issue.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
>
> >John Hansen wrote:
> >
> >
> >>What about GPL ?
> >>I assume that's out of the question!
> >>
> >>
> >
> >If we add some GPL code, the entire binary becomes GPL, and that
> >prevents closed-source commercial versions from being produced.
> >
> >
> >
>
> When I went searching for some code to make a directory path in initdb,
> I carefully avoided all the GPL versions, which is why I picked the code
> from NetBSD. Anyone taking code from elsewhere to use in PostgreSQL
> should a) acknowledge the source and b) be aware of this issue.

Agreed.

With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists. Now, some say that is enough to make
us GPL, but many don't agree with that interpretation.

--
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

>
> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
> merely linking to it if it exists.

But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
available.

Now, some say that is enough to make
> us GPL, but many don't agree with that interpretation.
>

--
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/

On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
>>
>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
>> merely linking to it if it exists.
>
> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
> available.

that isn't a PostgreSQL requirement though, that is a packagers
requirement ...

----
Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
>>
>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
>> merely linking to it if it exists.
>
>
> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline
> is available.
>
> Now, some say that is enough to make
>
>> us GPL, but many don't agree with that interpretation.
>>
>

We have been down this road before. You can not be forced to GPL your
code. You can be forced to stop using GPL code if you are in breach of
the GPL. That's according to the FSF themselves (specifically Eblen
Moglen). Some people have chosen to GPL their code rather than stop
their reliance on GPL code. That would would be a no-brainer choice for
us, as there is a simple BSD licensed replacement for libreadline.

So relax ;-) All is well.

cheers

andrew

Marc G. Fournier wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
>>> merely linking to it if it exists.
>>
>>
>> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline
>> is available.
>
>
> that isn't a PostgreSQL requirement though, that is a packagers
> requirement ...

If we link to readline, postgresql won't start without it. Regardless of
the package. That seems pretty much a postgresql requirement ;)

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> ----
> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://www.hub.org)
> Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ: 7615664

--
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/

Huh ?

./configure --without-readliine

works just fine, there is no requirement.

Dave
On 17-Jun-05, at 3:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:

> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing
>>>> it, but
>>>> merely linking to it if it exists.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless
>>> readline is available.
>>>
>> that isn't a PostgreSQL requirement though, that is a packagers
>> requirement ...
>>
>
> If we link to readline, postgresql won't start without it.
> Regardless of the package. That seems pretty much a postgresql
> requirement ;)
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Joshua D. Drake
>
>
>
>
>> ----
>> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://
>> www.hub.org)
>> Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy
>> ICQ: 7615664
>>
>
>
> --
> 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/
>
> ---------------------------(end of
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to
> majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>
>

Joshua D. Drake wrote:

>
> If we link to readline, postgresql won't start without it. Regardless
> of the package. That seems pretty much a postgresql requirement ;)
>
>

If you think you're in danger don't link to it. You don't have to at
all. You can build without readline entirely (it's only needed for psql)
or you can link to libedit instead.

So it's a postgresql option, not a requirement.

But they'll never worry anyway, it would be a complete waste of time and
money to pursue you over it.

cheers

andrew

Dave Cramer wrote:
> Huh ?
>
> ./configure --without-readliine
>
> works just fine, there is no requirement.

Again:

If we **link** to readline, postgresql won't start without it.
That is a postgresql requirement. Yes we can compile without
it. That isn't what I was talking about.

But as Andrew pointed out, it doesn't really matter.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Dave
> On 17-Jun-05, at 3:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>
>> Marc G. Fournier wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it,
>>>>> but
>>>>> merely linking to it if it exists.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless
>>>> readline is available.
>>>>
>>> that isn't a PostgreSQL requirement though, that is a packagers
>>> requirement ...
>>>
>>
>> If we link to readline, postgresql won't start without it. Regardless
>> of the package. That seems pretty much a postgresql requirement ;)
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Joshua D. Drake
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> ----
>>> Marc G. Fournier Hub.Org Networking Services (http://
>>> www.hub.org)
>>> Email: scrappy(at)hub(dot)org Yahoo!: yscrappy ICQ:
>>> 7615664
>>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> 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/
>>
>> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
>> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>>
>>

--
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/

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Dave Cramer wrote:
> > Huh ?
> >
> > ./configure --without-readliine
> >
> > works just fine, there is no requirement.
>
> Again:
>
> If we **link** to readline, postgresql won't start without it.
> That is a postgresql requirement. Yes we can compile without
> it. That isn't what I was talking about.
>
> But as Andrew pointed out, it doesn't really matter.

The point is the the source does not require it, but specific binaries
might based on how they are built.

--
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

"Joshua D. Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> writes:
>> With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
>> merely linking to it if it exists.

> But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
> available.

The RPMs require it --- not our source code. Since the RPMs can only
work atop a GPL OS (Linux), it hardly matters in that context.

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.

regards, tom lane

On 6/18/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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...

On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:43, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On 6/18/05, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> ... 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...

SRA, Greenplumb, and EnterpriseDB are just three of the companies that both
subsidize development and release non-bsd/proprietary versions of PostgreSQL.
You can bet they wouldn't be so quick to work with us if we weren't BSD
licensed. The community benefits greatly from our BSD license, and IMHO it
is the central factor that will eventually allow postgresql to achive total
world domination ;-)

--
Robert Treat
Build A Brighter Lamp :: Linux Apache {middleware} PostgreSQL

Tom Lane 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.
>
>
So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?

Peter

Peter Galbavy <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net> writes:
> So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?

No, that's not relevant. GNU make is a tool, not part of the end
result.

A more interesting question is Autoconf, which we also depend on
as a build tool, and which does copy parts of itself into the
distributed product. However, Autoconf explicitly releases its
output scripts as entirely free software, not GPL code.

regards, tom lane

On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:43:01 +0100,
Peter Galbavy <peter(dot)galbavy(at)knowtion(dot)net> wrote:
> Tom Lane 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.
> >
> >
> So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?

Neither using GNU make or gcc make to buld a binary make the resulting binary
bound by the GPL.

>>>
>>>
>>
>>So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?
>
>
> Neither using GNU make or gcc make to buld a binary make the resulting binary
> bound by the GPL.

That is correct because all (well most) of the libraries used by GCC are
LGPL not GPL.

Sincerely,

Joshua D. Drake

>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org