Douglas McNaught wrote:
>> "Grant license to use the code in question without cost, provided that
>> the code is being linked to at least 50% of the PostgreSQL code it is
>> being distributed alongside with."
>> This should allow commercial reuse in derived products without undesirable
>> sideeffects.
>I think Postgres becomes non-DFSG-free if this is done. All of a
>sudden one can't pull arbitrary pieces of code out of PG and use them
>in other projects (which I'd argue is the intent if not the letter of
>the DFSG). Have we ever allowed code in on these terms before? Are
>we willing to be dropped from Debian and possibly Red Hat if this is
>the case?
Upon reading the DFSG, it seems you have a point...
However...
QuickLZ is dual licensed:
a. Royalty-free-perpetuous-use as part of the PostgreSQL backend or
any derived works of PostgreSQL which link in *at least* 50% of the
original PostgreSQL codebase.
b. GPL if a) does not apply for some reason.
I.e. for all intents and purposes, it fits the bill for both:
1. PostgreSQL-derived products (existing and future).
2. Debian/RedHat, since the source can be used under GPL.
In essence, it would be kind of a GPL license on steroids; it grants
Berkeley-style rights as long as the source is part of PostgreSQL (or a
derived work thereof), and it falls back to GPL if extracted.
--
Sincerely,
Stephen R. van den Berg.
"Well, if we're going to make a party of it, let's nibble Nobby's nuts!"
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
