Thread: GPL, readline, and static/dynamic linking
Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0. http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1 The interesting thing is that Stallman says: "Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are linked statically or dynamically," explains Stallman."Either one makes a combined program. This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend binaries fall under the GPL. (Of course, we can use *BSD libedit now.) Let me add I don't agree with this, and find the whole GPL heavy-handedness very distasteful. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@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
Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0. > > http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1 > > The interesting thing is that Stallman says: > > "Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are linked > statically or dynamically," explains Stallman. "Either one makes a > combined program. > > This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in > PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend binaries > fall under the GPL. This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a problem. -- Trond Eivind Glomsrød Red Hat, Inc.
Mensaje citado por: Trond Eivind Glomsrød <teg@redhat.com>: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > > Here is an article about GPL and GPL version 3.0. > > > > > http://icd.pennnet.com/Articles/Article_Display.cfm?Section=Articles&SubSection=Display&ARTICLE_ID=92350&VERSION_NUM=1 > > > > The interesting thing is that Stallman says: > > > > "Our position is that it makes no difference whether programs are > linked > > statically or dynamically," explains Stallman. "Either one makes a > > combined program. > > > > This would seem to imply that our dynamic linking of libreadline in > > PostgreSQL backend binaries makes the distribution of backend > binaries > > fall under the GPL. > > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a > problem. I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc until it got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but you had to downloaded by ourself. Saludos... :-) System Administration: It's a dirty job, but someone told I had to do it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------
> > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or > > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but as > > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a > > problem. > > I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc until it > got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but you had to > downloaded by ourself. Yes, we don't distribute libreadline. We just check in 'configure' for it. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@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
On Thu, Feb 22, 2001 at 10:50:17AM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote: > Let me add I don't agree with this, and find the whole GPL > heavy-handedness very distasteful. Please, not this again. Is there a piss-and-moan-about-the-GPL schedule posted somewhere? Either PG is in compliance, or it's not. Only libreadline's copyright holder has the right to complain if it's not. There is no need to speculate; if we care about compliance, we need only ask the owner. If the owner says we're violating his license, then we can comply, or negotiate, or stop using the code. The GPL is no different from any other license, that way. Complaining about the terms on something you got for nothing has to be the biggest waste of time and attention I've seen on this list. Nathan Myers ncm@zembu.com
Mensaje citado por: Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us>: > > > This was discussed extensively earlier. Linking dynamically or > > > statically doesn't make a difference in the case of a library, but > as > > > long as readline is an optional feature for the user it's not a > > > problem. > > > > I agree with Trond on this. It's like the problem that PHP had with bc > until it > > got LGPLed. All they did was say you could compile PHP with it, but > you had to > > downloaded by ourself. > > Yes, we don't distribute libreadline. We just check in 'configure' for > it. In that case, I would say that there is nothing to discuss. RMS has nothing to say about this. The only problem would be if Postgres would be distributed with libreadline. Saludos... :-) System Administration: It's a dirty job, but someone told I had to do it. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Martín Marqués email: martin@math.unl.edu.ar Santa Fe - Argentina http://math.unl.edu.ar/~martin/ Administrador de sistemas en math.unl.edu.ar -----------------------------------------------------------------