On Thu, Feb 17, 2011 at 2:39 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Greg Smith <greg@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> I find it hard to get excited about working to replace the software that
>> has a reasonable license here (readline) rather than trying to eliminate
>> dependence on the one with an unreasonable license (OpenSSL).
>
> Hm?
>
> The trouble with readline is that it's GPL, not LGPL, and the former is
> actually *not* a reasonable license for a library. At least not for one
> that isn't trying to be viral. There's room for argument about whether
> dynamic linking exempts applications from the scope of the license, but
> in the end it would be cleanest from a licensing standpoint if we
> weren't using readline.
Using libedit would fix the problem for 'psql', but ...
> The OpenSSL license is BSD-with-advertising,
> which is obnoxious in some respects but it isn't trying to force other
> people to change the license on their code.
... you are forgetting all the GPL apps that link with libpq.
They either need to use non-SSL libpq or add OpenSSL exception
to their license (to have 100% feel-good licensing).
Just pointing out that OpenSSL does not smell like roses...
--
marko
