Mickael Profeta wrote:
> Florian Weimer wrote:
>>* Mickael Profeta:
>>>If you link LibPreludeDB against other code all of which is itself licensed
>>>under the GNU General Public License, version 2 dated June 1991 ("GPL v2"),
>>>then you may use Libprelude under the terms of the GPL v2, as appearing in
>>>the file COPYING.
>>
>>It seems that libpreludedb links against the libpq, the PostgreSQL
>>client library, which is not licensed under the GPL (only under a
>>GPL-compatible license). This means that Debian would need a
>>commercial license.
>>
>>However, I doubt that this is what upstream intended.
>
> Just got the answer of upstream:
>
> ----
>
> The LICENSE.README file highlight the fact that is is not legal to link
> a non GPL work (meaning proprietary work) to libpreludedb. LibpreludeDB
> itself is GPL. But proprietary program can't link against libpreludeDB
> unless they get a commercial license.
>
> I think the LICENSE.README file could be modified to add the missing bit
> about the "GPL compatible" license. Would that be acceptable ?
>
> ----
>
> Would such a modification be enough, or should it be more deeply modified?That would be sufficient, assuming all copyright holders of the work agree to the change. It would also help to make it clear that the information in LICENSE.README is phrased simply as a description of the effect the GPL already has, rather than as a separate condition imposed in addition to the GPL. - Josh Triplett
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
