On Saturday 18 June 2005 01:43, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
On 6/18/05, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
... But is it really the case that PostgreSQL developers are being
paid to code because PG is BSDed and proprietary forks are possible?
... There is no harm in being BSDed, but I question that
Tom Lane wrote:
What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres
in a completely non-GPL environment. If that were not so then I think
we'd have some license issues. But the fact that building PG in a
GPL-ized environment creates a GPL-ized binary is not a problem from
Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?
No, that's not relevant. GNU make is a tool, not part of the end
result.
A more interesting question is Autoconf, which we also depend on
as a build tool, and which does copy parts of itself into the
On Sat, Jun 18, 2005 at 08:43:01 +0100,
Peter Galbavy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tom Lane wrote:
What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres
in a completely non-GPL environment. If that were not so then I think
we'd have some license issues. But the fact that
So, is there an effort to not require GNU make then ?
Neither using GNU make or gcc make to buld a binary make the resulting binary
bound by the GPL.
That is correct because all (well most) of the libraries used by GCC are
LGPL not GPL.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists.
But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
available.
Now, some say that is enough to make
us GPL, but many don't agree with that interpretation.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists.
But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
available.
that isn't a PostgreSQL requirement though, that is a
Am Dienstag, den 14.06.2005, 22:59 -0300 schrieb Marc G. Fournier:
We already do ... libreadline ...
Hm. I remember in my source builds I used libedit
which is the BSD replacement IIRC?
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists.
But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline
is available.
Now, some say that is enough to make
us GPL, but many don't agree
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists.
But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline
is available.
that isn't a PostgreSQL
Huh ?
./configure --without-readliine
works just fine, there is no requirement.
Dave
On 17-Jun-05, at 3:04 PM, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing
it, but
merely
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
Dave Cramer wrote:
Huh ?
./configure --without-readliine
works just fine, there is no requirement.
Again:
If we **link** to readline, postgresql won't start without it.
That is a postgresql requirement. Yes we can compile without
it. That isn't what I
Joshua D. Drake wrote:
If we link to readline, postgresql won't start without it. Regardless
of the package. That seems pretty much a postgresql requirement ;)
If you think you're in danger don't link to it. You don't have to at
all. You can build without readline entirely (it's only
Dave Cramer wrote:
Huh ?
./configure --without-readliine
works just fine, there is no requirement.
Again:
If we **link** to readline, postgresql won't start without it.
That is a postgresql requirement. Yes we can compile without
it. That isn't what I was talking about.
But as Andrew
Joshua D. Drake [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or distributing it, but
merely linking to it if it exists.
But we are also requiring it. The rpms won't install unless readline is
available.
The RPMs require it --- not our source code. Since the
On 6/18/05, Tom Lane [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is important is that it is possible, and useful, to build Postgres
in a completely non-GPL environment. If that were not so then I think
we'd have some license issues. But the fact that building PG in a
GPL-ized environment creates a
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
LGPL libraries but not GPL.
I think the answer isn't clear on that one.
If that is not clear then what is the difference between a LGPL lib and a
GPL one? To copy code from
Dennis Bjorklund wrote:
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, Bruce Momjian wrote:
K, that's what confused me as I got the impression it was ok to require
LGPL libraries but not GPL.
I think the answer isn't clear on that one.
If that is not clear then what is the difference between a LGPL lib and
LGPL libs are used all over by all kinds of closed sorce applications and
that's the whole idea of making things (like glib) into LGPL instead of
GPL. For example Acrobat Reader 7 for unix uses GTK+ and it is LGPL.
Acrobat Reader surely do require GTK+.
Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
code if we can help it.
License issues aside, should we not be trying to avoid adding
dependencies on third party libraries, especially those that are not
standard on most operating systems?
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
Maybe LGPL is OK, but I think we will try to avoid a dependency on LGPL
code if we can help it.
License issues aside, should we not be trying to avoid adding
dependencies on third party libraries, especially those that are not
John,
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?
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,
Josh,
Both of these would be fine as add-ins to be distributed *separately*
through
pgFoundry or even the mirrors if they prove popular.
Bundling them in unified distribution binaries with PostgreSQL would
be a
significant problem.
You see this in other projects all the time:
Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
... John
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate
subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your
We already do ... libreadline ...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, John Hansen wrote:
Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
... John
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an
What about GPL ?
I assume that's out of the question!
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:59 AM
To: John Hansen
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LGPL
We already do ... libreadline
Marc G. Fournier wrote:
We already do ... libreadline ...
libreadline is GPL, not LGPL.
---
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, John Hansen wrote:
Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
...
.
---
-Original Message-
From: Marc G. Fournier [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 11:59 AM
To: John Hansen
Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LGPL
We already do ... libreadline ...
On Wed, 15 Jun 2005, John Hansen wrote:
Is there any
Ooooh
I got the impression that using GPL libraries was a Bad Thing(tm)
... John
-Original Message-
From: Andrew Dunstan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:15 PM
To: Marc G. Fournier
Cc: John Hansen; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS
So, what's the story with readline?
-Original Message-
From: Bruce Momjian [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2005 12:11 PM
To: John Hansen
Cc: Marc G. Fournier; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] LGPL
John Hansen wrote:
What about GPL ?
I
Er, no. It's GPL, not LGPL software. My readline.h says:
The GNU Readline Library is free software; you can redistribute it
and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or
(at your option) any later
Bruce Momjian wrote:
John Hansen wrote:
What about GPL ?
I assume that's out of the question!
If we add some GPL code, the entire binary becomes GPL, and that
prevents closed-source commercial versions from being produced.
When I went searching for some code to make a
Andrew Dunstan wrote:
Bruce Momjian wrote:
John Hansen wrote:
What about GPL ?
I assume that's out of the question!
If we add some GPL code, the entire binary becomes GPL, and that
prevents closed-source commercial versions from being produced.
When I went
Agreed.
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or
distributing it, but merely linking to it if it exists. Now,
some say that is enough to make us GPL, but many don't agree
with that interpretation.
Right,. That's actually exactly what I meant: using GPL/LGPL libraries
by
John Hansen wrote:
So, what's the story with readline?
There is a greyish clause in the GPL that says that linking to things
normally distributed with your operating system doesn't incur the
obligations of the GPL. So assuming that readline, which is GPL, is
normally distributed with your
John Hansen wrote:
So, what's the story with readline?
It's only used in psql. If they made a fuss presumably we'd just remove
the hooks and use libedit instead - isn't that the default on some BSD
systems anyway?
But don't plug GPL code into the backend under any circumstances.
John Hansen wrote:
Agreed.
With libreadline, we are not taking their code or
distributing it, but merely linking to it if it exists. Now,
some say that is enough to make us GPL, but many don't agree
with that interpretation.
Right,. That's actually exactly what I meant: using
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
Another point of view on this: it's OK to use LGPL code if it's
available on the local platform, so long as we don't *require* it to be
present. It's even safer if the LGPL code is merely
Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Wrote:
John Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Is there any reason why we would not be able to use LGPL code in PG?
Another point of view on this: it's OK to use LGPL code if
it's available on the local platform, so long as we don't
*require* it to be
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
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
John Hansen wrote:
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
42 matches
Mail list logo
