Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble?

> Bruce Momjian <maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> > Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta
> > release. I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue. It
> > seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you
> > can't distribute the result. Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we
> > don't copyright our code.
>
> Huh? We certainly do --- or have you missed that
> * Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California
> that's plastered across all the source files?

Oh. I remember that now. :-)
>
> The GPL does restrict the conditions under which GPL'd code can be
> distributed; in particular it can't be distributed as part of a program
> that is not all GPL'd (more or less --- I have not read the terms lately).
> So, because we use BSD license rather than GNU, we cannot *include in
> our distribution* any library that is under GPL.

But Alladin wasn't doing that either. They were just distributing
source code that could use readline, like we do.

>
> Any end user who does not intend to redistribute the result can
> certainly obtain our distribution and readline and build them together.
> So it's no issue for source distributions, but I wonder about RPMs.
> Our RPMs do not include the actual libreadline file, do they?

I think we dynamically load libreadline, which is OK, maybe.

>
> > Even though the GNU License (GPL) allows linking GPL'ed code (such as
> > the GNU readline library package) with non-GPL'ed code (such as all
> > the rest of Ghostscript) if one doesn't distribute the result, the
> > Free Software Foundation, creators of the GPL, have told us that in
> > their opinion, the GPL forbids distributing non-GPL'ed code that is
> > merely intended to be linked with GPL'ed code.
>
> As stated, this is ridiculous on its face. The FSF has no possible
> right to prevent the distribution of software that they didn't write
> and that doesn't fall under the GPL.

Totally true, as far I an can figure. The US government stupidly tries
to do this under an existing export law. Don't know of any FSF laws.

> Although I haven't been paying close attention to the Ghostscript
> situation, I suspect that the real story is either that the readline
> interface code that someone contributed to Ghostscript was contributed
> with GPL terms already attached to it, or that Aladdin is concerned

Oh, that is an interesting issue that I never considered. Reminds us we
can't use GPL code.

> about being able to distribute full-featured precompiled binaries of
> Ghostscript. (BTW, Peter Deutsch has a history of forcing the issue
> when he thinks that someone else is being unreasonable, and I suspect
> that he's deliberately overreacting in hopes of making FSF change
> their position.)

Good for him.

> My inclination is to ignore the issue until and unless we hear a
> complaint from the libreadline authors --- and if we do, we yank all
> trace of readline support from psql. End of story.

Agreed.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle
maillist(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 853-3000
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue
+ Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania 19026