Re: Library General Public Licence

[Bart Samwel <bart(at)samwel(dot)tk>]

Tom Lane wrote:
> Jim Brown <jimbrown32rb(at)yahoo(dot)com> writes:
> > I wrote a proprietary MS-Windows application (I can
> > just hear the groans... sorry) that I hope to sell. It
> > uses a backend database, and I like the option of
> > using PostgreSQL for that. I need to know clearly what
> > I need to do to distribute the psqlODBC driver with my
> > app. 
>
> I'm not a lawyer either, but my reading of the LGPL says that you
> can distribute an LGPL library along with a proprietary application
> that uses the library so long as you
>
> (1) include the source code of the library (or offer to provide it
> on request, but if you're sending out CDs you might as well just
> put the source code on to begin with).
>
> (2) provide the proprietary app in a form that can be re-linked with
> a user-modified version of the library, ie, .o files or equivalent.
>
> Basically what the LGPL is saying is that someone should be able to
> change the source code of the library and still use it with your app.
>
> (1) is certainly no skin off your nose except for a few more MB on
> the distribution media.  (2) might annoy you, especially if you have
> illusions of being able to prevent reverse-engineering of your
> executables.  My impression of common practice is that no one actually
> pays much attention to requirement (2), but it's there in black and white
> in the LGPL text.  If you want to keep yourself perfectly clean and
> aboveboard you should honor it.

Fortunately ODBC drivers are decoupled from the actual programs that use 
them by a standard interface. If I am correct then this implies that (2) 
is always met for psqlODBC.

Cheers,
Bart