Hello!
On Tue, 19 Oct 1999, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> 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.
>
> It seems to suggest that we could be prevented from distributing
> readline in the future. Not sure though.
It is second or third time I see this, so I think I understand. This is
the way FSF protects GNU-licensed code - you can link with GNU code, but
you cannot distribute non-GNU code in binary form linked with GNU code. If you want to distribute non-GNU code in
binaryform only, either you
must NOT to link it with GNU code; or link it with GNU code and provide a
way to user to relink to other versions of GNU code; or just publish your
sources. The second way means - publish your *.o for all platforms. The way
number 3 means "give all users a way to compile and link it as they want,
with or without GNU code". I think this applied to PostgreSQL - we have
source code published, so I do not expect problems with readline. Binary-only programs are in GNUtroubles, really.
Somewhereon
www.gnu.org I saw a story about a company that made a program, linked it
with libreadline and distributed it in binary-only form. FSF contacted the
company asked to remove libreadline. The company instead published the
whole sources. FSF considered it as a Big Win! BTW, readline is a special case here - it protected by GNU GPL, which
is
very restrictive. Most free/opensource libs are protected with GNU LGPL,
which is less restrictive. GNU readline is the way FSF forces people to
publsih sources!
Sorry, my English is far from perfect, if you do not understand my
explanations - we may raise a discussion here, and I'll try to find a
better words...
Oleg.
---- Oleg Broytmann http://members.xoom.com/phd2/ phd2@earthling.net Programmers don't die, they
justGOSUB without RETURN.
