Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>Shachar Shemesh wrote:
>
>
>>Can anyone shed more light on this point for me? Am I misreading
>>something? If it is possible to put code into an LGPL project, what
>>is the requirement?
>>
>>
>
>You have to display the PostgreSQL license text in the source code or
>the binary, depending on what you ship. A strict interpretation would
>say that considering the combined work, this is an additional
>requirement on top of the [L]GPL, so it is not allowed by the terms of
>the [L]GPL. (But it is allowed by the terms of the PostgreSQL
>license.) A looser interpretation would say that what the PostgreSQL
>license text says is essentially a subset of what the [L]GPL already
>says anyway, so adding the requirements of the PostgreSQL license on
>top of it does not actually impose additional requirements, so there is
>no problem. Which one of these interpretations you believe is between
>you and the copyright holders of that LGPL'ed work, but the PostgreSQL
>copyright holders don't care.
>
>
Unfortunetly, I'm the only LGPL copyright holder in this case. It's
unfortunate because it means noone else has joined in on this project
yet (OLE DB provider).
I'll be more than happy to accept your explanation (and it does fit in
with FSF's assertation that the X11 license is GPL compatible). The only
paragraph that bothered me to begin with was the one claiming I need to
copy verbatim the license.
If all I am required to do is to make sure the license is ENFORCED by
all of my derived work, then yes, the LGPL does that and I'm home free.
I still think you should change the text on the front page to read, at
the very least, "PostgreSQL is distributed under a flexible X11 like
license". "BSD" is too misleading, and most people know the X11 license
by now.
Shachar
--
Shachar Shemesh
Lingnu Open Source Consulting
http://www.lingnu.com/