| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <mha(at)sollentuna(dot)net> |
| Subject: | Re: psql & readline & win32 |
| Date: | 2006-01-02 03:30:14 |
| Message-ID: | 27353.1136172614@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Robert Treat <xzilla(at)users(dot)sourceforge(dot)net> writes:
> On Sunday 01 January 2006 18:51, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
>> This has been debated ad nauseam in the past. The consensus, bar a few
>> people with more advanced paranoia than I suffer from, is that we can ;-)
> I don't think it is good practice to ship packaged software that is statically
> linked to a gpl library and then claim that your package is bsd licensed.
Robert is 100% right. If the Readline people wanted non-GPL packages
linking to their code, they'd have used LGPL not GPL. We must not
ignore their clear intentions; to do so is certainly unethical and
probably illegal.
Anyone for trying to port BSD libedit to work on Windows?
(Of course, you could also treat the Windows installer as being entirely
GPL-licensed, which would effectively comply with both upstream
licenses. But I don't find that an appealing solution.)
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2006-01-02 03:32:21 | SIGALRM in autovacuum.c |
| Previous Message | Robert Treat | 2006-01-02 02:49:29 | Re: psql & readline & win32 |