Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage

Stephen Frost wrote:
-- Start of PGP signed section.
> * Greg Stark (gsstark(at)mit(dot)edu) wrote:
> > Well for what it's worth we want to support both. At least the project
> > philosophy has been that commercial derivatives are expected and
> > acceptable so things like EDB's products, or Greenplums, or for that
> > matter Pokertracker's all include other proprietary source that of
> > course has restrictive licenses ("OpenSSL-type-licensed" except even
> > *more* restrictive).
>
> This is a bit backwards, I think.. What you're suggesting is that, some
> day, we might want community/BSD-licensed PG to link against
> commercially licensed products from EDB for basic functionality (eg:
> encryption)?
>
> I agree that we want to reduce and eliminate, to the extent possible,
> our dependence on GPL or OpenSSL-type-licensed libraries. It's
> unfortunate that there isn't a good non-GPL option for libreadline, but
> I'm not sure what EDB or anyone else would expect the PG community to
> do regarding that. Should PG remove support for libreadline? Should
> the PG community make libedit a good BSD-licensed alternative to
> libreadline? Neither of those really make sense to me.

What are our click-installers doing now?

--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com

+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +