> > Well, yes, it calls user_lock(), but the communication is not
> > OS-linked, it is linked over a network socket, so I don't think
> > the GPL spreads over a socket. Just as telnet'ing somewhere an
> > typing 'bash' doesn't make your telnet GPL'ed, so I think the
> > client code is safe. To the client, the backend is just
> > returning information. You don't really link to the query
> > results.
>
> Ah, ok.
Yes, kind of tricky. I am no expert in this but I have had the usual
discussions.
> > > compare complexities of contrib/userlock and backend' userlock
> > > code: what's reason to cover contrib/userlock by GPL?
> >
> > Only because Massimo prefers it. I can think of no other reason.
> > It clearly GPL-stamps any backend that links it in.
>
> Ok, let's do one step back - you wrote:
>
> > My assumption is that once you link that code into the backend,
> > the entire backend is GPL'ed and any other application code
> > you link into it is also (stored procedures, triggers, etc.)
>
> So, one would have to open-source and GPL all procedures/triggers
> used by application just because of application uses user_lock()
> in queries?! Is it good?
Yep. Is it good? Well, if you like the GPL, I guess so. If you don't,
then it isn't good.
Of course, if you want to try and make money selling your program, it
isn't good whether you like the GPL or not. :-)
-- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610)
853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill,
Pennsylvania19026