[snip] > a program in /contrib linking to an LGPL lib has never been > an issue. > Linking to LGPL libs doesn't encumber the software linking to it. > > > > If that is a real objective, I'm surprised. > > > > The base source tree has always been as BSD pure as we can > make it ... > > its never been kept a secret ... > > True. But not linking to LGPLd libs would be a bit extreme there.
======================================================================== ======= NOTE UP FRONT -- Please email all flames directly to me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] ... ======================================================================== ======= I disagree. Because of the language in the LGPL: http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/lesser.txt I would not use LGPL tools in any finished commercial project. For me, if PostgreSQL linked against LGPL libraries, it would kill its usefulness for me completely. One interpretation of the following: "For example, if you distribute copies of the library, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that we gave you. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code. If you link other code with the library, you must provide complete object files to the recipients, so that they can relink them with the library after making changes to the library and recompiling it. And you must show them these terms so they know their rights." Would be that tools that use LGPL libraries must also be distributed without cost. Consider this section: "However, linking a "work that uses the Library" with the Library creates an executable that is a derivative of the Library (because it contains portions of the Library), rather than a "work that uses the library". The executable is therefore covered by this License. Section 6 states terms for distribution of such executables." LGPL is also a virus [IMO-YMMV]. Please send all flames directly to my email address [EMAIL PROTECTED] so we don't fill up the PG list with advocacy stuff. Commercial systems can get very paranoid over questionable legal language. Even if what it says is not "what was intended" -- that is still what it says and might possibly be enforced at some future time. Pure opinion of mine says... The BSD license is a very good license. The ACE license is a very good license. http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~schmidt/ACE-copying.html The MIT license is a very good license. There are others: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ Now, I don't care if PostgreSQL has a TON of GPL stuff in it as long as it is OPTIONAL. I don't care if you have to use GPL/LGPL tools to build it, as long as they are not directly linked into it. ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
