Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] psqlodbc - psqlodbc: Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory

Log Message:
-----------
Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro files
used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL source tree to
bootstrap the code.

Modified Files:
--------------
psqlodbc:
Makefile.am (r1.43 -> r1.44)
(http://cvs.pgfoundry.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/psqlodbc/psqlodbc/Makefile.am.diff?r1=1.43&r2=1.44)
configure.ac (r1.67 -> r1.68)
(http://cvs.pgfoundry.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/psqlodbc/psqlodbc/configure.ac.diff?r1=1.67&r2=1.68)

Added Files:
-----------
psqlodbc/config:
general.m4 (r1.1)
(http://cvs.pgfoundry.org/cgi-bin/cvsweb.cgi/psqlodbc/psqlodbc/config/general.m4?rev=1.1&content-type=text/x-cvsweb-markup)

User Petere wrote:
> Log Message:
> -----------
> Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro files
> used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL source tree to
> bootstrap the code.

<snip>

>
> Added Files:
> -----------
> psqlodbc/config:
> general.m4 (r1.1)

Under what license is this file distributed ?

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> User Petere wrote:
>> Log Message:
>> -----------
>> Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro files
>> used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL source tree to
>> bootstrap the code.
>
> <snip>
>
>> Added Files:
>> -----------
>> psqlodbc/config:
>> general.m4 (r1.1)
>
> Under what license is this file distributed ?

Could you please reply to my question ?

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > User Petere wrote:
> >> Log Message:
> >> -----------
> >> Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro
> >> files used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL
> >> source tree to bootstrap the code.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Added Files:
> >> -----------
> >> psqlodbc/config:
> >> general.m4 (r1.1)
> >
> > Under what license is this file distributed ?
>
> Could you please reply to my question ?

It's from the PostgreSQL source tree, so whatever license that has.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>> User Petere wrote:
>>>> Log Message:
>>>> -----------
>>>> Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro
>>>> files used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL
>>>> source tree to bootstrap the code.
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> Added Files:
>>>> -----------
>>>> psqlodbc/config:
>>>> general.m4 (r1.1)
>>> Under what license is this file distributed ?
>> Could you please reply to my question ?
>
> It's from the PostgreSQL source tree, so whatever license that has.

So what's it ?
Could you please take account of developers in the psqlodbc project
a little more ?

On May 6, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>> Under what license is this file distributed ?
>>> Could you please reply to my question ?
>>
>> It's from the PostgreSQL source tree, so whatever license that has.
>
> So what's it ?
> Could you please take account of developers in the psqlodbc project
> a little more ?

decibel(at)platter(dot)1[10:59]~/pgsql/HEAD:61%cat COPYRIGHT
PostgreSQL Database Management System
(formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)

Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2007, PostgreSQL Global Development Group

Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California

Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written
agreement
is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.

IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY
FOR
DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES,
INCLUDING
LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS
DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED
OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES,
INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED
HEREUNDER IS
ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO
OBLIGATIONS TO
PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
decibel(at)platter(dot)1[10:59]~/pgsql/HEAD:62%

--
Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

I've not seen your reply yet.
Do you have a mind to cooperate with us ?

I wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>> User Petere wrote:
>>>>> Log Message:
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> Put Autotools-generated files into subdirectory config/; add macro
>>>>> files used from PostgreSQL there so you don't need a PostgreSQL
>>>>> source tree to bootstrap the code.
>>>> <snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Added Files:
>>>>> -----------
>>>>> psqlodbc/config:
>>>>> general.m4 (r1.1)
>>>> Under what license is this file distributed ?
>>> Could you please reply to my question ?
>> It's from the PostgreSQL source tree, so whatever license that has.
>
> So what's it ?
> Could you please take account of developers in the psqlodbc project
> a little more ?

Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?

Thanks a lot.
Hiroshi Inoue

Jim Nasby wrote:
> On May 6, 2007, at 4:38 PM, Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>>> Under what license is this file distributed ?
>>>> Could you please reply to my question ?
>>>
>>> It's from the PostgreSQL source tree, so whatever license that has.
>>
>> So what's it ?
>> Could you please take account of developers in the psqlodbc project
>> a little more ?
>
> decibel(at)platter(dot)1[10:59]~/pgsql/HEAD:61%cat COPYRIGHT
> PostgreSQL Database Management System
> (formerly known as Postgres, then as Postgres95)
>
> Portions Copyright (c) 1996-2007, PostgreSQL Global Development Group
>
> Portions Copyright (c) 1994, The Regents of the University of California
>
> Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software and its
> documentation for any purpose, without fee, and without a written agreement
> is hereby granted, provided that the above copyright notice and this
> paragraph and the following two paragraphs appear in all copies.
>
> IN NO EVENT SHALL THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA BE LIABLE TO ANY PARTY FOR
> DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES, INCLUDING
> LOST PROFITS, ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE AND ITS
> DOCUMENTATION, EVEN IF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
> POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.
>
> THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIMS ANY WARRANTIES,
> INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY
> AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. THE SOFTWARE PROVIDED HEREUNDER IS
> ON AN "AS IS" BASIS, AND THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA HAS NO OBLIGATIONS TO
> PROVIDE MAINTENANCE, SUPPORT, UPDATES, ENHANCEMENTS, OR MODIFICATIONS.
> decibel(at)platter(dot)1[10:59]~/pgsql/HEAD:62%
>
> --
> Jim Nasby jim(at)nasby(dot)net
> EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com 512.569.9461 (cell)

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>
>

I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
but (probably) not vice versa.

cheers

andrew

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>
>>
>
> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> but (probably) not vice versa.

To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> cheers
>
> andrew
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> I've not seen your reply yet.

You keep sending your emails to randomly invented addresses, so I don't
get them.

I think your questions have been answered in the meantime. If not,
please address them to me.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> I've not seen your reply yet.
>
> You keep sending your emails to randomly invented addresses, so I don't
> get them.

Must I mail them directly to you in the first place ?
I'm sending the emails to pgsql-committes and pgsql-hackers also.
Please note that the question is to your recent sudden change to
psqlodbc.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>
>
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>
>>
>
> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> but (probably) not vice versa.

Thanks.
I'm not an expert about licence at all. Though it's impossible
to release (L)GPL code as BSD one, it seems possible to release
BSD code as (L)GPL one. I feel strange a little that there's no
*give and take*.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>
>>
>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL
>> project, but (probably) not vice versa.
>
> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.

Could you tell me a recommendation ?
I feel completely LGPL one is simpler.

Thanks.

Hiroshi Inoue

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL
>>> project, but (probably) not vice versa.
>>
>> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
>> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>
> Could you tell me a recommendation ?
> I feel completely LGPL one is simpler.

If you are asking me, which code you should release under, I would
suggest the LGPL as the psqlodbc driver is licensed under the LGPL.

Joshua D. Drake

>
> Thanks.
>
> Hiroshi Inoue
>

Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>>>>
>>>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>>>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL
>>>> project, but (probably) not vice versa.
>>>
>>> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember
>>> that any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>>
>> Could you tell me a recommendation ?
>> I feel completely LGPL one is simpler.
>
> If you are asking me, which code you should release under, I would
> suggest the LGPL as the psqlodbc driver is licensed under the LGPL.

Thanks a lot.
Could someone confirm the following my recognition ?

The LPGL package could add and release a copy of some Postgres BSD
licensed code as LGPL ones together with the current LGPL code and
then the package is still entirely LGPL. When some changes are made
on the LGPL but originally BSD licencsed code, we can't reflect the
changes to the orignal Postgres code.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Could someone confirm the following my recognition ?

> The LPGL package could add and release a copy of some Postgres BSD
> licensed code as LGPL ones together with the current LGPL code and
> then the package is still entirely LGPL.

No, the files you borrowed from Postgres remain BSD --- you cannot
unilaterally relicense someone else's code.

This does not actually affect anything, since the BSD license terms are
more liberal than LGPL: you can distribute the combined package just as
easily as if it were all-LGPL, and anyone using the package is still
effectively bound by the LGPL terms for the useful parts. But it would
be appropriate to note that "files X,Y,Z are distributed under a
different license, namely <insert PG terms here>".

This is not really different from the legal situation before, where you
had in effect copied some Postgres code into acinclude.m4 without
bothering to acknowledge it. But it would be more polite to acknowledge
it.

regards, tom lane

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Could someone confirm the following my recognition ?
>
>> The LPGL package could add and release a copy of some Postgres BSD
>> licensed code as LGPL ones together with the current LGPL code and
>> then the package is still entirely LGPL.
>
> No, the files you borrowed from Postgres remain BSD --- you cannot
> unilaterally relicense someone else's code.

Oops I've completely misunderstood it.
Probably I misread some articles about the coexistence.
Many thanks.

> This does not actually affect anything, since the BSD license terms are
> more liberal than LGPL: you can distribute the combined package just as
> easily as if it were all-LGPL, and anyone using the package is still
> effectively bound by the LGPL terms for the useful parts. But it would
> be appropriate to note that "files X,Y,Z are distributed under a
> different license, namely <insert PG terms here>".

Thanks for your clear explanation.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 01:45 schrieb Hiroshi Inoue:
> Must I mail them directly to you in the first place ?

Yes.

> Please note that the question is to your recent sudden change to
> psqlodbc.

These are the same files that psqlodbc has been shipping for years. Just now
they are in the CVS repository, to address Tom Lane's concern about being
able to reproduce the build.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 01:45 schrieb Hiroshi Inoue:
>> Must I mail them directly to you in the first place ?
>
> Yes.

Oh I seem to have been apart from the community too long.
Could you please tell me where I can find the rule ?

regards,
HIroshi Inoue

Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 15:12 schrieb Hiroshi Inoue:
> Oh I seem to have been apart from the community too long.
> Could you please tell me where I can find the rule ?

The only "rule" there is is that if you want to talk to person X, you write to
person X. That rule is as old as communications.

--
Peter Eisentraut
http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/

Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 8. Mai 2007 15:12 schrieb Hiroshi Inoue:
>> Oh I seem to have been apart from the community too long.
>> Could you please tell me where I can find the rule ?
>
> The only "rule" there is is that if you want to talk to person X, you write to
> person X. That rule is as old as communications.

Hmmm have I misunderstood mailing lists ?
Is the "rule" right in case of communications via mailing lists ?
For example I know a ML which doesn't use direct reply mais at all.
As for PostgreSQL a few years ago AFAIR it was left to each member
whether he sends direct reply mails as well.
I don't know if it is stll so currently.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
> >> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
> >> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
> >
> > I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> > understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> > but (probably) not vice versa.
>
> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>

It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects,
under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they
find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some
other license.

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

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
> > >> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
> > >> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
> > >
> > > I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> > > understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> > > but (probably) not vice versa.
> >
> > To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
> > any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>
> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
> licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects,
> under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they
> find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some
> other license.

Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved
developers, obviously).

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
>>> but (probably) not vice versa.
>> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
>> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>>
>
> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
> licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects,
> under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they
> find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some
> other license.

Psqlodbc package is LGPL licensed and seems to have little problem to
include copy of BSD licensed code as a part of it. It's what I
understand now from other developers' teachings. I'm still afraid of
my misunderstanding a little.

Thanks.

Hiroshi Inoue

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>>>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
>>>> but (probably) not vice versa.
>>> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
>>> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
>> licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects,
>> under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they
>> find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some
>> other license.
>
> Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
> relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
> want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
> Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved
> developers, obviously).

There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know
where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the
license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long. Oppositely I thought
we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm
not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*.

Thanks.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
>> licensed code

> Psqlodbc package is LGPL licensed and seems to have little problem to
> include copy of BSD licensed code as a part of it.

Right, that direction is fine, it's the other way around that's
problematic (because adding some BSD code adds no new restrictions on
what users can do with an overall-LGPL project, whereas having some LGPL
components in a supposedly BSD project does limit what they can do with
it). I don't see any reason why you shouldn't include those PG autoconf
macros in psqlodbc. You just need to document that they have a BSD
license, in case someone wants to use them by themselves.

regards, tom lane

Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> >Robert Treat wrote:
> >>On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> >>>Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> >>>>Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> >>>>>Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
> >>>>>Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
> >>>>>Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
> >>>>I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> >>>>understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> >>>>but (probably) not vice versa.
> >>>To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
> >>>any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
> >>It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
> >>licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own
> >>projects, under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get
> >>bitten when they find out that they have now illegally included code that
> >>is licensed via some other license.
> >
> >Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
> >relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
> >want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
> >Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved
> >developers, obviously).
>
> There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know
> where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the
> license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long.

Yes, that is a problem for releasing old code whose developers are long
gone. (What I was thinking was copying *new* code from psqlodbc into
Postgres).

> Oppositely I thought
> we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm
> not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*.

ISTM it would be necessary to get legal advice to be sure that it would
be considered not derived, but one would think that that's too much
hassle for something that can be done much more simply by including the
differently-licensed files in the first place, which is legal anyway.

--
Alvaro Herrera http://www.CommandPrompt.com/
The PostgreSQL Company - Command Prompt, Inc.

Tom Lane wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue <inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> writes:
>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
>>> licensed code
>
>> Psqlodbc package is LGPL licensed and seems to have little problem to
>> include copy of BSD licensed code as a part of it.
>
> Right, that direction is fine, it's the other way around that's
> problematic (because adding some BSD code adds no new restrictions on
> what users can do with an overall-LGPL project, whereas having some LGPL
> components in a supposedly BSD project does limit what they can do with
> it). I don't see any reason why you shouldn't include those PG autoconf
> macros in psqlodbc. You just need to document that they have a BSD
> license, in case someone wants to use them by themselves.

Yes I am in that direction. You may see some confusing words in my other
posts but they are all I once thought.
Thanks for your clarification.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>> Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>>> Robert Treat wrote:
>>>> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:

<snip>

>>> Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
>>> relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
>>> want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
>>> Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved
>>> developers, obviously).
>> There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know
>> where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the
>> license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long.
>
> Yes, that is a problem for releasing old code whose developers are long
> gone. (What I was thinking was copying *new* code from psqlodbc into
> Postgres).

What do you mean by *new* code?
New line?, word? or other kind of classification?

>> Oppositely I thought
>> we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm
>> not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*.
>
> ISTM it would be necessary to get legal advice to be sure that it would
> be considered not derived, but one would think that that's too much
> hassle for something that can be done much more simply by including the
> differently-licensed files in the first place, which is legal anyway.

OK I understand.
Thanks.

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue