Alvaro Herrera wrote:
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).

There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know
where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the
license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long. Oppositely I thought
we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm
not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*.


Hiroshi Inoue

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend

Reply via email to