Обсуждение: PostgreSQL, LGPL and GPL.
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? Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions? If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a text file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met under the GPL/LGPL? What if those you distribute to lose the source code CD, can they then come after you X number of years later demanding the source? For the developers of LGPL/GPL like Npgsql, why do you not dual license? Have a model like MySQL where one can purchase a BSD licensed version or use the GPL/LGPL one. regards, Karen
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.
You killed that man? Yes I did -- but did I murder him? Or was it
involuntary manslaughter? .. Neither; it was self defense. No it was not
self defense, you were driving your car. Oh your right, it was a crime
of passion -- let's make a plea deal.
Sincerely,
Joshua D. Drake
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
John Hasler wrote:
> > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when
> > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the
> > source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions?
>
> Pretty much, but you must provide your software in a form that can be
> relinked.
>
What does that mean? In .NET, you add a reference to the Npgsql dll,
and then add "Using Npgsql;" to the top of the class you want to use
Npgsql in. So if you wrote something like this it would have to go
under the LGPL?:
Using Npgsql;
namespace foo{
class foobar
{
foobar()
{
String connectionString = "";
NpgsqlConnection conn = new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString);
}
}
}
Karen Hill wrote: > 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? Nothing ever becomes GPL automatically. You may wish to distribute your own work under the GPL, but you don't have to. > Like wise if you create a client > that connects to that database, do they also become GPL? Likewise. > Does > PostgreSQL in effect become GPL when using PostGIS because PostGIS > accesses parts of PostgreSQL? Likewise. > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release > the source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql > functions? Correct. > If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a > text file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met > under the GPL/LGPL? That depends on the distribution methods of the non-source. > What if those you distribute to lose the source > code CD, can they then come after you X number of years later > demanding the source? No. -- Peter Eisentraut http://developer.postgresql.org/~petere/
Karen Hill wrote:
> John Hasler wrote:
>
>>> Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when
>>> distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the
>>> source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions?
>> Pretty much, but you must provide your software in a form that can be
>> relinked.
>>
>
> What does that mean? In .NET, you add a reference to the Npgsql dll,
> and then add "Using Npgsql;" to the top of the class you want to use
> Npgsql in. So if you wrote something like this it would have to go
> under the LGPL?:
What he means is if you modified npgsql.dll itself you would have to
provide those modifications back. Not your code, just the code that
modifies npgsql.
J
>
> Using Npgsql;
> namespace foo{
> class foobar
> {
> foobar()
> {
> String connectionString = "";
> NpgsqlConnection conn = new NpgsqlConnection(connectionString);
> }
>
> }
>
> }
>
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 4: Have you searched our list archives?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/
>
--
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
http://www.commandprompt.com/
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
-----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-----
On Fri, Oct 20, 2006 at 03:35:34PM -0500, Ron Johnson wrote: > 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. Dynamic linking may be an issue, but talking over a socket doesn't create any kind of dependancy at all. I don't think anyone has ever tried to claim that talking to a GPL server requires your code to be GPL also. The existing counterexamples alone... Have a nice day, -- Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog@svana.org> http://svana.org/kleptog/ > From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to litigate.
Вложения
On 2006-10-20, Karen Hill <karen_hill22@yahoo.com> wrote: > 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? No, because those tables, stored procedures etc. are not derivative works of the PostGIS code. > 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? You have to distinguish the server software from what you store in the database. Your data does not "become GPL" because it's stored in a database managed by a GPL-licensed server. If you distribute the PostgreSQL server software linked with the PostGIS software, then you have to comply with the GPL for both parts of that derivative work. If you don't distribute any server software, you do not have to worry about what the GPL requires. The MySQL people claim that connecting to their database server means your client has to be made GPL, but they're pretty much the only ones saying that. > Npgsql is LGPL. It means you must release the source of Npgsql when > distributing it, and if you modify Npgsql, but not have to release the > source under the (L)GPL of the software that calls Npgsql functions? Yes. > If you provide the source on a CD and the (GPL/LGPL) license as a text > file on that CD if you distribute, then are your obligations met under > the GPL/LGPL? Yes. > What if those you distribute to lose the source code CD, > can they then come after you X number of years later demanding the > source? No. They got the source, they were careless, that's too bad for them. If and only if you told them "instead of giving you the source right now, you (and anyone who wants) can write to me any time in the next three years and I'll give the source to whoever writes to me", then people can demand the source. > For the developers of LGPL/GPL like Npgsql, why do you not dual > license? Have a model like MySQL where one can purchase a BSD licensed > version or use the GPL/LGPL one. Dual licensing is basically trading on ignorance of what the GPL requires and how to work with that. It's not a viable long-term business model. And besides, it's much harder to get contributions from third party if you want to hold that amount of control over the source. Merijn -- Remove +nospam to reply
Merijn de Weerd wrote: [...] > If you distribute the PostgreSQL server software linked with > the PostGIS software, then you have to comply with the GPL > for both parts of that derivative work. > > If you don't distribute any server software, you do not have > to worry about what the GPL requires. Yeah. A+B is GNU derivative. Go to doctor, schizophrenic de Weerd. regards, alexander.