-----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-----
