Re: GNU readline and BSD license

Adam Haberlach wrote:
>
> On Fri, Dec 29, 2000 at 08:46:40PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Adam Haberlach <adam(at)newsnipple(dot)com> writes:
> > > RMS already made a big stink about this, claiming that BeOS's use
> > > of an emulation layer to link to some GPL'ed network drivers was enough
> > > to force the GPL'ing of the kernel.
> >
> > Did BeOS make distributions that included the GPL'd code?
> Yes. IIRC (this happened about the time I got here more then two years
> ago), Be released binary versions of the drivers with the standard
> distribution as well as source to them as sample code. RMS's main claim
> was that although the GPL'ed source was released as source, it had to
> link to the kernel to be useful, and therefore could not be distributed
> without source to the kernel.
>
> > Was the GPL'd code essential for useful use of their system?
> No.

I can't believe this thread continues. No portion of Postgres is derived
from readline, and no modifications are made to readline. "readline" is
not distributed with the source. If you read the COPYING supplied with
readline, look at the last paragraph of section 2 under "Terms and
Conditions"

>> In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
>> with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
>> a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
>> the scope of this License.

I think it can safely be said that there is no readline issue.

--
http://www.mohawksoft.com