On Wednesday 02 April 2003 22:39, Tom Lane wrote:
> Lamar Owen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > <stifles ROTFL>

> > Everyone does realize that on Linux PostgreSQL binaries link against
> > glibc, which is LGPL......

> And your point is?

That everyone is being entirely too picky.  Hey, we link against other things, 
too.  Some aren't LGPL.  The readline example is a good one, incidentally: 
it's GPL.  And its stubs are in the backend, of all places.  At least on 

Gotta watch any 'static builds' then.

> On other Unixoid systems you can link against BSD-license libc code, or
> some-random-proprietary-license code from HP or Sun or whomever.  glibc
> doesn't have a monopoly in that sphere.  But mlw is offering code that
> will *only* run against a single implementation that is LGPL licensed.
> That makes it effectively LGPL.

One could clean-room reimplement if the demand is enough.  

But, if one wants to get picky, let's talk about the license issue of 
PL/Python.  The PSF looks like a rat's nest. 
Lamar Owen
WGCR Internet Radio
1 Peter 4:11

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to