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 Linux. 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]
