Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com> writes:

> If we had to supply gcj along with PostgreSQL in order for PostgreSQL to
> work, I guess that would mean gcj was incorporated in PostgreSQL - that
> would mean PostgreSQL would become subject to GPL protection.

Not true--"mere aggregation" (shipping two things together) does not
require all the aggregated software to be GPL'd.  And you're not
linking to the gcj compiler, just running it.

This particular part of the problem is a non-issue.

-Doug

01 Nov 2002 15:11:48 -0500
Doug McNaught <doug@mcnaught.org>
Re: [Fwd: Re: PG functions in Java: maybe use gcj?]
Forwarding to hackers a discussion that has been happening off list.
--Barry


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG functions in Java: maybe use gcj?
Date: 01 Nov 2002 19:13:39 +0000
From: Oliver Elphick <olly@lfix.co.uk>
To: Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com>
References: <819.1036006197@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
<3DC0AA42.4000205@xythos.com>	<3715.1036037428@sss.pgh.pa.us> 
<3DC175F7.90901@xythos.com> <1036153748.24598.70.camel@linda> 
<3DC2C5A4.2080005@xythos.com>

On Fri, 2002-11-01 at 18:19, Barry Lind wrote:
 > Oliver,
 >
 > Thanks for the explaination.  This makes sense.
 >
 > However I think the proposal Tom was suggesting would require linking in
 > more than just the runtime.  Since create function would need to call
 > the compiler itself to compile the function into java bytecode or
 > directly to a .so.

If we had to supply gcj along with PostgreSQL in order for PostgreSQL to
work, I guess that would mean gcj was incorporated in PostgreSQL - that
would mean PostgreSQL would become subject to GPL protection.

If CREATE FUNCTION called a java compiler (which might or might not be
gcj) that PostgreSQL did not supply, that compiler would not be
incorporated.  If there were no java compiler, java functions would not
work, but otherwise PostgreSQL would be unaffected.  It would be the
same as any of the tools that get called in our shell scripts, many of
which may be GNU utilities, including, of course, the shell itself.

As for the virtual machine, I think that is what libgcj supplies, and it
is specifically excluded from having GPL effects by its licence.

(You didn't post to the list, so I haven't; but I have no objection to
your forwarding this there.)
-- 
Oliver Elphick                                Oliver.Elphick@lfix.co.uk
Isle of Wight, UK
http://www.lfix.co.uk/oliver
GPG: 1024D/3E1D0C1C: CA12 09E0 E8D5 8870 5839  932A 614D 4C34 3E1D 0C1C
                  ========================================
      "But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their
       strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles;
       they shall run, and not be weary; and they shall walk,
       and not faint."            Isaiah 40:31





Fri, 01 Nov 2002 12:46:41 -0800
Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com>
[Fwd: Re: PG functions in Java: maybe use gcj?]
Barry Lind <blind@xythos.com> forwards:
> If we had to supply gcj along with PostgreSQL in order for PostgreSQL to
> work, I guess that would mean gcj was incorporated in PostgreSQL - that
> would mean PostgreSQL would become subject to GPL protection.

Depends on how you define "work".  pljava wouldn't work without a
compiler, clearly, but is that Postgres?  I don't think so; any more
than I consider Perl, Tcl, or Python to be part of Postgres.

One way to make the separation even clearer is to distribute pljava as
a separate project under a GPL or LGPL license.  However, that would be
moderately annoying from a maintenance point of view, so I'd prefer not
to.

			regards, tom lane

Fri, 01 Nov 2002 15:55:08 -0500
Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Re: [Fwd: Re: PG functions in Java: maybe use gcj?] 