Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage

On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 05:23, Joshua D. Drake <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
> On Wed, 2011-02-16 at 22:53 -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
>> Stephen Frost wrote:
>> -- Start of PGP signed section.
>> > * Greg Stark (gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
>> > > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
>> > > philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
>> > > acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
>> > > matter Pokertracker's all include other proprietary source that of
>> > > course has restrictive licenses ("OpenSSL-type-licensed" except even
>> > > *more* restrictive).
>> >
>> > This is a bit backwards, I think..  What you're suggesting is that, some
>> > day, we might want community/BSD-licensed PG to link against
>> > commercially licensed products from EDB for basic functionality (eg:
>> > encryption)?
>> >
>> > I agree that we want to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible,
>> > our dependence on GPL or OpenSSL-type-licensed libraries.  It's
>> > unfortunate that there isn't a good non-GPL option for libreadline, but
>> > I'm not sure what EDB or anyone else would expect the PG community to
>> > do regarding that.  Should PG remove support for libreadline?  Should
>> > the PG community make libedit a good BSD-licensed alternative to
>> > libreadline?  Neither of those really make sense to me.
>>
>> What are our click-installers doing now?
>
> Probably readline but does it matter? We distribute the source to the
> click installers.

Actually, we don't. We used to, but we don't at this point.

--
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: http://www.hagander.net/
 Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/