Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? - Mailing list pgsql-hackers
From | Bruce Momjian |
---|---|
Subject | Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? |
Date | |
Msg-id | 199910192138.RAA14366@candle.pha.pa.us Whole thread Raw |
In response to | Re: [HACKERS] Readline use in trouble? (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
List | pgsql-hackers |
> Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Here is something I read as part of the Alladin Ghostscript 6.0 beta > > release. I must admit I don't understand the logic of the issue. It > > seems the issue is that you can link non-GPL to GPL libraries, but you > > can't distribute the result. Maybe it doesn't apply to us because we > > don't copyright our code. > > Huh? We certainly do --- or have you missed that > * Copyright (c) 1994, Regents of the University of California > that's plastered across all the source files? Oh. I remember that now. :-) > > The GPL does restrict the conditions under which GPL'd code can be > distributed; in particular it can't be distributed as part of a program > that is not all GPL'd (more or less --- I have not read the terms lately). > So, because we use BSD license rather than GNU, we cannot *include in > our distribution* any library that is under GPL. But Alladin wasn't doing that either. They were just distributing source code that could use readline, like we do. > > Any end user who does not intend to redistribute the result can > certainly obtain our distribution and readline and build them together. > So it's no issue for source distributions, but I wonder about RPMs. > Our RPMs do not include the actual libreadline file, do they? I think we dynamically load libreadline, which is OK, maybe. > > > Even though the GNU License (GPL) allows linking GPL'ed code (such as > > the GNU readline library package) with non-GPL'ed code (such as all > > the rest of Ghostscript) if one doesn't distribute the result, the > > Free Software Foundation, creators of the GPL, have told us that in > > their opinion, the GPL forbids distributing non-GPL'ed code that is > > merely intended to be linked with GPL'ed code. > > As stated, this is ridiculous on its face. The FSF has no possible > right to prevent the distribution of software that they didn't write > and that doesn't fall under the GPL. Totally true, as far I an can figure. The US government stupidly tries to do this under an existing export law. Don't know of any FSF laws. > Although I haven't been paying close attention to the Ghostscript > situation, I suspect that the real story is either that the readline > interface code that someone contributed to Ghostscript was contributed > with GPL terms already attached to it, or that Aladdin is concerned Oh, that is an interesting issue that I never considered. Reminds us we can't use GPL code. > about being able to distribute full-featured precompiled binaries of > Ghostscript. (BTW, Peter Deutsch has a history of forcing the issue > when he thinks that someone else is being unreasonable, and I suspect > that he's deliberately overreacting in hopes of making FSF change > their position.) Good for him. > My inclination is to ignore the issue until and unless we hear a > complaint from the libreadline authors --- and if we do, we yank all > trace of readline support from psql. End of story. Agreed. -- Bruce Momjian | http://www.op.net/~candle maillist@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 853-3000+ If your life is a hard drive, | 830 Blythe Avenue + Christ can be your backup. | Drexel Hill, Pennsylvania19026
pgsql-hackers by date: