It would be more clear if your architecture only used postgis to serve data to a non-postgis client application. Maybe you can use postgis this way without providing your custom patches.
On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 7:10 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: > > From: Josh Jordan <joshjor...@robotjosh.com> > > I think it should be ok as long as you open source any custom patches in > the postgis that you distribute. > > This doesn't make sense - that would be for LGPL, more or less. > Certainly one has to provide the source to the GPL component, modified > or not, and regardless of bundling. Perhaps you meant that the bundling > is not distribution, but the GPL obligations on the underlying postgis > distribution remain, in which case I think we agree. > > The question is whether the entire installer is a derived work under > copyright law. If it is, then the GPL components may not be distributed > unless the entire bundle is offered under the GPL. Answering te > is-it-a-derived-work question is close to impossible, depends on one's > jurisdiction, and requires an IP lawyer who understands open source > licensing. > > There's a further subtlely, which is whether code that uses postgis's > interfaces is a derived work. This sort of claim is made for Linux > kernel modules. But, generally no one claims that talking regular SQL > results in a derived work (partly because it's a standard), and this > issue seems to be mostly limited to compilation of modules/plugins > against GPL-licensed headers. But something else to discuss with > counsel :-) > > _______________________________________________ > postgis-users mailing list > postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net > http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users > >
_______________________________________________ postgis-users mailing list postgis-users@postgis.refractions.net http://postgis.refractions.net/mailman/listinfo/postgis-users