-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 10/20/06 13:49, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
> Karen Hill wrote:
>> I was looking through the various contrib packages and pgfoundry
>> projects. I noticed that many of them are GPL like PostGIS or LGPL
>> like Npgsql. I have questions.
>>
>> If you make create a PostgreSQL database that uses PostGIS and you
>> distribute that database, than your database (tables, stored
>> procedures, views, etc) are GPL? Like wise if you create a client that
>> connects to that database, do they also become GPL? Does PostgreSQL in
>> effect become GPL when using PostGIS because PostGIS accesses parts of
>> PostgreSQL?
>
> O.k. first, nobody here is a lawyer. You should be asking them. However
> in my experience:
>
> PostgreSQL + LGPL is fine
> PostgreSQL + GPL it depends.
>
> For example, if Slony was GPL and you used Slony + PostgreSQL with your
> web application to distribute load, it is questionable if you would be
> able to keep your sources to yourself as the GPL becomes a distributed
> and required component of the application.
>
> But it all depends on a ton of components.
>
> In short, don't ask geeks legal questions, they don't know even if they
> think they do. You need to ask an attorney.
>
> Remember that the law is all about interpretation.
Exactly. The "Linus View" is that dynamic linking and "socket
conversations" are *not* linking in the GPL2 meaning, but the FSF &
RMS think differently. The GPL3 seems to codify that strictness.
- --
Ron Johnson, Jr.
Jefferson LA USA
Is "common sense" really valid?
For example, it is "common sense" to white-power racists that
whites are superior to blacks, and that those with brown skins
are mud people.
However, that "common sense" is obviously wrong.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFFOTMWS9HxQb37XmcRAmu8AKC0P8/Eq+ISD88aJBYvjGY9NaeJDwCfeyVU
QJ224doTckpNTczIDcXTr9E=
=rP+O
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----