Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: psql & readline & win32

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: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
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

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Bruce MomjianDate: 2006-01-02 03:32:21
Subject: SIGALRM in autovacuum.c
Previous:From: Robert TreatDate: 2006-01-02 02:49:29
Subject: Re: psql & readline & win32

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2018 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group