From: | Jason Earl <jearl(at)notengoamigos(dot)org> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>, Greg Smith <greg(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Michael Banck <mbanck(at)debian(dot)org>, jd <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |
Date: | 2011-02-17 04:50:21 |
Message-ID: | 87y65fs1rm.fsf@notengoamigos.org |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Feb 16 2011, Tom Lane wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
>> * Tom Lane (tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us) wrote:
>>> In particular, getting rid of use of OpenSSL would not be sufficient
>>> to satisfy the most rabid GPL partisans that we were in compliance.
>
>> I've never heard anyone argue that position, don't believe anyone would,
>> and certainly don't agree with it.
>
> [ shrug ... ] Check the Postgres archives, from back around 2000 if
> memory serves.
>
> regards, tom lane
Or he could just read this essay from the FSF website:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-not-lgpl.html
It basically tries to persuade developers to create GPLed libraries in
cases where the library provides services that are not available in
proprietary libraries. The idea is to *force* developers to use the GPL
if they want to use the library.
Here's a relevant quote that actually uses readline as an example:
However, when a library provides a significant unique
capability, like GNU Readline, that's a horse of a different
color. The Readline library implements input editing and
history for interactive programs, and that's a facility not
generally available elsewhere. Releasing it under the GPL and
limiting its use to free programs gives our community a real
boost. At least one application program is free software today
specifically because that was necessary for using Readline.
If we amass a collection of powerful GPL-covered libraries that
have no parallel available to proprietary software, they will
provide a range of useful modules to serve as building blocks in
new free programs. This will be a significant advantage for
further free software development, and some projects will decide
to make software free in order to use these libraries.
University projects can easily be influenced; nowadays, as
companies begin to consider making software free, even some
commercial projects can be influenced in this way.
IANAL, but it is hard to recommend relying on a reading of the GPL that
is inconsistent with the folks that wrote the license.
Jason
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-02-17 05:06:53 | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2011-02-17 04:48:12 | Re: Debian readline/libedit breakage |