On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 09:38:30PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> On Monday, August 1, 2011, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 01, 2011 at 07:17:00PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 6:46 PM, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> wrote:
> >> > On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 08:32:03PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, Jul 30, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> >> > I think you had better plan on incorporating GNU readline
> >> >> > into installer builds for Lion.
> >> >>
> >> >> Unfortunately the licence makes that a non-starter.
> >> >
> >> > What is it about a GPLed psql client that is a non-starter for
> >> > the installer? I'm not a fan of the GPL, but in this case, the
> >> > effects of linking it in are quite limited in scope, i.e. they
> >> > pertain to exactly one binary.
> >> The scope or number of files is irrelevant. Having just a single
> >> GPL'd file in those installers makes it impossible for ISVs to
> >> bundle them with their products, unless they open source them
> >> under a GPL compatible licence.
> > I know of no one, not even the wackiest AGPL loony-tune, who
> > claims that the GPL is infectious to the degree you're describing.
> > Are you *sure* the reason you state is the actual reason?
> Well, lets find out. Try shipping a closed-source product which
> includes the GPL MySQL ODBC driver, and see how long you can hold
> out against Oracle's attack lawyers.
So long as you make the MySQL ODBC driver source code available, you
have no problem. The GPL infection kicks in at the step where you
link, which you're not doing when you ship that driver.
> Preventing open source code being used in closed source products is
> the whole point of the GPL.
You're smarter than I if you've figured out what motivates Stallman
and Moglen, and the text of the license is far from clear on this
This business about incompatibility between libssl and the GPL seems
somewhat more plausible. Ideological opposition to shipping GPL
software is also a plausible reason. There's nothing wrong with any
of this. I just don't find the stated reason terribly plausible.
David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org> http://fetter.org/
Phone: +1 415 235 3778 AIM: dfetter666 Yahoo!: dfetter
Skype: davidfetter XMPP: david(dot)fetter(at)gmail(dot)com
Remember to vote!
Consider donating to Postgres: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2011-08-02 01:24:15|
|Subject: Re: pgbench internal contention|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2011-08-01 20:42:26|
|Subject: Re: libedit memory stomp is apparently fixed in OS X Lion |