| From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)debian(dot)org>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, jd <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |
| Date: | 2011-02-11 20:32:08 |
| Message-ID: | 20110211203208.GX4116@tamriel.snowman.net |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom,
* Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
> We have code that exists in both psql and the backend (cf src/port/)
> so I'm not sure this really will satisfy the more rabid GPL partisans.
We're talking Debian, who, yes, are a bit pickier when it comes to
trying to actually follow the licneses they release, but they're also
technically competent. I expect the answer would depend on if the
backend process links against both readline and openssl or not.
> And this whole discussion is about satisfying the most rabid of them,
> remember. I don't really think that anything other than "relicense all
> of Postgres as GPL" will make them happy.
Of course, relicensing it under the GPL wouldn't actually help this
situation, at all, nor has anyone brought it up that I'm aware of..
Thanks,
Stephen
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-11 20:36:07 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |
| Previous Message | Dimitri Fontaine | 2011-02-11 20:31:18 | Re: ALTER EXTENSION UPGRADE, v3 |