Robert Treat wrote:
> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> > Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> > > Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
> > >> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
> > >> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
> > >> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
> > >
> > > I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
> > > understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
> > > but (probably) not vice versa.
> >
> > To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
> > any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl 
> licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects, 
> under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they 
> find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some 
> other license.  

Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
Postgres license.  (They must obtain permission from all the involved
developers, obviously).

Alvaro Herrera                      
PostgreSQL Replication, Consulting, Custom Development, 24x7 support

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: In versions below 8.0, the planner will ignore your desire to
       choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not

Reply via email to