Re: GNU readline and BSD license

> > >I do not believe that. In fact, I'll go further and say "Horsepucky!"
> > >The GPL applies to works that "contain or are derived from" a GPL'd
> > >program. Linking to a separately distributed library does not cause
> > >psql either to contain or to be derived from libreadline.
> >
> >
> > Some very highly paid lawyers disagree with you.
> >
> > That doesn't make them right, but keep in mind that no one has defined "derivitive work" in a court of law. And RMS isn't a lawyer.
> >
> > I agree readline doesn't taint PG, but IMHO, the more distance between the GPL and PG, the better.
> OK. For the last time, here's the story about linking, as agreed upon by
> almost damn everyone:
>
> a) dynamic linking is kosher, as of GPL2
> b) static linking is OK, but you may NOT redistribute resulting libraries.
>
> I hope the above will put the discussion about readline to an end, as
> Postgres does not distribute statically linked binaries.

I read through this large thread, and it is good to see that readline
is not an issue for us. Only binary distributions that statically link
in libreadline are a problem.

If people feel that this is a significant restriction, we can start
distributing libedit, or the binary packager can link libedit into their
binary.

I hesitate to add the libedit code to our already large distribution,
and I think several others agreed.

I am concerned about RMS's heavy-handed agenda in regards to the GPL,
but it appears he is not irrational in his requirements.

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(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