At 7:15 PM -0500 12/29/00, Tom Lane wrote:
>Alfred Perlstein <bright(at)wintelcom(dot)net> writes:
>> Rasmus Lerdorf warned one of you guys that simply linking to GNU
>> readline can contaminate code with the GPL.
>> Readline isn't LGPL which permits linking without lincense issues,
>> it is GPL which means that if you link to it, you must be GPL as
>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.
"Every time you provide an option, you're asking the user to make a decision.
That means they will have to think about something and decide about it.
It's not necessarily a bad thing, but, in general, you should always try to
minimize the number of decisions that people have to make."
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Brent Verner||Date: 2000-12-31 02:25:35|
|Subject: Re: oid failures on Alpha solved|
|Previous:||From: Patrick Welche||Date: 2000-12-30 21:34:16|
|Subject: Re: GNU readline and BSD license|