Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Robert Treat wrote:
>> On Monday 07 May 2007 15:52, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>>> Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>>>> Hiroshi Inoue wrote:
>>>>> Maybe it's BSD which is different from the license of psqlodbc (LGPL).
>>>>> Is there no problem with their coexistence ?
>>>>> Or is it possible for psqlodbc to be LGPL entirely ?
>>>> I am having difficulty in understanding what the problem is. My
>>>> understanding is that using BSD licensed code is ok in an LGPL project,
>>>> but (probably) not vice versa.
>>> To my knowledge you can do it either way, as long as you remember that
>>> any changes to the lgpl code have to be released.
>> It's generally a very bad idea for a BSD licensed project to include lgpl
>> licensed code because people who try and use your work in thier own projects,
>> under the assumption that it really is bsd licensed, get bitten when they
>> find out that they have now illegally included code that is licensed via some
>> other license.
>
> Of course, the developer who owns the LGPL-licensed copyright is free to
> relicense his work under a different license, so if the ODBC developers
> want to contribute code to Postgres they can give their work under the
> Postgres license. (They must obtain permission from all the involved
> developers, obviously).
There are no original developers in the project now and I don't know
where or how they are now. I personally am not so eager to change the
license to BSD because it has been LGPL too long. Oppositely I thought
we can implement the BSD licensed autoconf macros by ourselves but I'm
not sure how it can be considered as *not derived*.
Thanks.
regards,
Hiroshi Inoue