Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote: > "John Hansen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Right,... Let me be more specific then,.... > > > What are your thoughts on using the glib > > (http://developer.gnome.org/doc/API/2.2/glib/index.html) > library for > > some functionality in pg? > > Right offhand that seems like a nonstarter. Exactly how > would you use it in a way that didn't turn it into a required > component? It looks to me like a collection of bits that are > pretty useful but also very low-level, and hence not easily separable.
K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require LGPL libraries but not GPL. > > > Additionally,. I came across this fine library > > (http://home.gna.org/uri/uri.en.html) which I'd like to use > as a base > > for a new URI type, unfortunately it's GPL, so based on the > above I'm > > guessing using it as is, is out of the question? > > Sure, you can do whatever you like with that ... as long as > you're not expecting us to distribute the combined code as > part of Postgres. > > It's worth reiterating here that GPL/LGPL code plus BSD code > is no problem whatever for local development and use. It's > only if you want to redistribute the result that you have to > worry about what the licenses require. Since Postgres is a > BSD-license project, *we* are not going to redistribute any > GPL or LGPL code, nor any code that fundamentally depends on > code that is so licensed. But you can pretty much do what > you like in your own sandbox. In particular, you could > develop a datatype that requires a GPL/LGPL library, and then > distribute that code by itself as GPL/LGPL, and neither the > GPL nor BSD camps would have any problem with that. Just > don't expect us to put such code in a BSD distribution ... That's what I was afraid of.... > > regards, tom lane > > ... John ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
