David Fetter <da...@fetter.org> writes:
> On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
>> The scope or number of files is irrelevant. Having just a single
>> GPL'd file in those installers makes it impossible for ISVs to
>> bundle them with their products, unless they open source them under
>> a GPL compatible licence.
> I know of no one, not even the wackiest AGPL loony-tune, who claims
> that the GPL is infectious to the degree you're describing.
Really? You must have a very small sample. The *entire reason* that
there is an LGPL as well as straight GPL is that the latter is thought
to have exactly this effect when used for a library. And the readline
guys have deliberately chosen to use GPL, not LGPL, because that is the
effect they want.
This doesn't affect most Linux distributions because the entire distro
is shipped under GPL-compliant conditions (eg you can get all the
source). Or at least that's the interpretation Red Hat's lawyers use.
But it *would* affect somebody who wanted to bundle readline-containing
psql into a larger proprietary product. We use BSD-ish licensing in
part because that scenario is okay with us ... and Dave is concerned
about not losing that property for the installer builds.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
