Tom Lane wrote:
>
> I definitely agree with Vadim here: it's fairly silly that the
> contrib userlock code is GPL'd, when it consists only of a few dozen
> lines of wrapper for the real functionality that's in the main backend.
As it seems a generally useful feature, it could at least be LGPL'd so
that linking to it won't force the whole backend under GPL.
> The only thing this licensing setup can accomplish is to discourage
> people from using the userlock code; what's the value of that?
Maybe it makes Massimo feel good ? It seems a worhty reason to me, as
he has contributed a lot of useful stuff over the time.
I really think that mixing licences inside one program is bad, if not
for
any other reason then for confusing people and making them have
discussions
like this.
> Besides, anyone who actually wanted to use the userlock code would need
> only to write their own wrapper functions to get around the GPL license.
This is a part of copyright law that eludes me - can i write a
replacement
function for something so simple that it can essentially be done in one
way only (like incrementing a value by one) ?
-----------------
Hannu