Dave Page wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:45 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 11:49, Dave Page <dpage@pgadmin.org> wrote:
> >> Depends on your definition of "distribute" (and what part you are
> >> specifically referring to). There's no tarball, but the installer
> >> sources are on git.postgresql.org.
> >
> > Oh, my bad - they're back. I was referring to our discussion a couple
> > of weeks back (I think), when you said that was too much work :-P
>
> For the record, it wasn't keeping the PG installer source code public
> that was too much work, it was cleaning out some of the unrelated code
> from other installers.
Well, we are going down a slippery slope if we think the click-through
installers are OK to use readline and distribute because we supply the
source for the installers --- that then requires anyone using the
binaries (or libraries) in those installers to also supply the source
code, e.g. GPL. :-( I am not saying they have to, but falling back to
the "oh we give source code for the click-through installers" is not a
position we can fall back on without affecting our users.
Also, I think part of the problem for Debian is that they distribute
readline and Postgres because they are the operating system vendor. I
don't think the "use the OS library if already present" interpretation
of the GPL really thought about that case.
-- Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> http://momjian.us EnterpriseDB
http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
